UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS 

IN 

AMERICAN  ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  ETHNOLOGY 

Vol.  12,  No.  7,  pp.  249-282  February  10,  1917 


anxa 
88-  B 
20401 
c.l 


BANDELIER’S  CONTRIBUTION  TO  THE  STUDY 
OF  ANCIENT  MEXICAN  SOCIAL 
ORGANIZATION 

’  BY 

T.  T.  WATERMAN 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRESS 
BERKELEY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS 
DEPARTMENT  OF  ANTHROPOLOGY 

Tie  following  publications  dealing  with  archaeological  and  ethnological  subjects  issued 
under  the  direction  of  the  Department  of  Anthropology  are  sent  in  exchange  for  the  publi¬ 
cations  of  anthropological  departments  and  museums,  and  for  journals  devoted  to  general 
anthropology  or  to  archaeology  and  ethnology.  They  are  for  sale  at  the  prices  stated. 
Exchanges  should  be  directed  to  The  Exchange  Department,  University  Library,  Berkeley, 
California,  U.  S.  A.  All  orders  and  remittances  should  be  addressed  to  the  University  of 
California  Press. 

European  agent  for  the  series  in  American  Archaeology  and  Ethnology,  Classical  Phil¬ 
ology,  Education,  Modem  Philology,  Philosophy,  and  Semitic  Philology,  Otto  Harrassowitz, 
Leipzig.  For  the  series  in  Botany,  Geology,  Pathology,  Physiology,  Zoology  and  also  Amer¬ 
ican  Archaeology  and  Ethnology,  R.  Friedlaender  &  Sohn,  Berlin. 

AMERICAN  ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  ETHNOLOGY.— A.  L.  Kroeber,  Editor.  Prices, 
Volume  1,  $4.25;  Volumes  2  to  It,  inclusive,  $3.50  each;  Volume  12  and  following 


$5.00  each. 

Cited  as  Univ.  Calif.  Publ.  Am.  Arch.  Ethn.  Price 

Vol.  1.  1.  Life  and  Culture  of  the  Hupa,  by  Pliny  Earle  Goddard.  Pp.  1-88; 

plates  1-30.  September,  1903... . . . . . . . . . $1.25 

2.  Hupa  Texts,  by  Pliny  Earle  Goddard.  Pp.  89-368.  March,  1904  ... _  3.00 

Index,  pp.  369-378. 

VoL  2.  1.  The  Exploration  of  the  Potter  Creek  Cave,  by  William  J.  Sinclair. 

Pp.  1-27;  plates  1-14.  April,  1904  _ _ _  .40 

2.  The  Languages  of  the  Coast  of  California  South  of  San  Francisco,  by 

A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp.  29-80,  with  a  map.  June,  1904 . . . . ...._ . 60 

3.  Types  of  Indian  Culture  in  California,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp.  81-103. 

June,  1904  . . . . . . . . . . . .  .25 

4.  Basket  Designs  of  the  Indians  of  Northwestern  California,  by  A.  L. 

Kroeber.  Pp.  105-164;  plates  15-21.  January,  1905  _ _ _ 76 

6.  The  Yokuts  Language  of  South  Central  California,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber. 

Pp.  165-377.  January,  1907  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2.26 

Index,  pp.  379-392. 

Vol.  3.  The  Morphology  of  the  Hupa  Language,  by  Pliny  Earle  Goddard. 

344  pp.  June,  1905  . . . . . . . . . .  3.60 

Vol.  4.  1.  The  Earliest  Historical  Relations  between  Mexico  and  Japan,  from 

original  documents  preserved  in  Spain  and  Japan,  by  Zelia  Nuttall. 

Pp.  1-47.  April,  1906  . . . . . . . . . . . _...  .50 

2.  Contribution  to  the  Physical  Anthropology  of  California,  based  on  col¬ 
lections  in  the  Department  of  Anthropology  of  the  University  of 
California,  and  in  the  U.  S.  National  Museum,  by  Ales  Hrdlicka. 

Pp.  49-64,  with  5  tables;  plates  1-10,  and  map.  June,  1906  . .  .75 

8.  The  Shoshonsan  Dialects  of  California,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp.  65-166. 

February,  1907  . . . . . _ .  1.50 

4.  Indian  Myths  from  South  Central  California,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp. 

167-250.  May,  1907  . — . . . 76 

5.  The  Washo  Language  of  East  Central  California  and  Nevada,  by  A.  L. 

Kroeber.  Pp.  251-318.  September,  1907  . . . . . . .  .75 

6.  The  Religion  of  the  Indians  of  California,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp.  319- 

356.  September,  1907  . . . . . . .  . . _.......  .60 

Index,  pp.  357-374. 

Vol.  5.  1.  The  Phonology  of  the  Hupa  Language;  Part  I,  The  Individual  Sounds, 

by  Pliny  Eatle  Goddard.  Pp.  1-20,  plates  1-8.  March,  1907  — . 35 

2.  Navaho  Myths,  Prayers  and  Songs,  with  Texts  and  Translations,  by 

Washington  Matthews,’  edited  by  Pliny  Earle  Goddard.  Pp.  21-63. 
September,  1907  . . . _ . . . — — — . -  -75 

3.  Kato  Texts,  by  Pliny  Earle  Goddard.  Pp.  65-288,  plate  9.  December, 

1909  . . ; . . . . . . . .  2.50 

4.  The  Material  Culture  of  the  Klamath  Lake  and  Modoc  Indians  of 

Northeastern  California  and  Southern  Oregon,  by  S.  A.  Barrett. 

Pp.  239-292,  plates  10-25.  June,  1910 . . . . . . 75 

6.  The  Chimariko  Indians  and  Language,  by  Roland  B.  Dixon.  Pp.  293- 

380.  August,  1910  . . . . . . .  1.00 

Index,  pp.  381-384. 

Vol.  6.  1.  The  Ethno-Geography  of  the  Pomo  and  Neighboring  Indians,  by  Sam¬ 
uel  Alfred  Barrett.  Pp.  1-332,  maps  1-2.  February,  1908  . .'... .  3.26 


2.  The  Geography  and  Dialects  of  the  Miwok  Indians,  by  Samuel  Alfred 

Barrett.  Pp.  333-368,  map  3. 

3.  On  the  Evidence  of  the  Occupation  of  Certain  Regions  by  the  Miwok 

Indians,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp.  369-380.  Nos.  2  and  3  in  one  cover. 

February,  1908  - - - - - - - - - . — —  - 

Index,  pp.  381-400. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS 

IN 

AMERICAN  ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  ETHNOLOGY 

Vol.  12,  No.  7,  pp.  249-282  February  10,  1917 


BANDELIER ’S  CONTRIBUTION  TO  THE  STUDY 
OF  ANCIENT  MEXICAN  SOCIAL 
ORGANIZATION 


BY 

T.  T.  WATERMAN 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Introduction  . • .  249 

Clan  organization  in  ancient  Mexico  . . .  252 

Governmental  functions  of  the  clan  .  256 

Honorary  chiefs  .  256 

The  clan  council  . 257 

Executive  officers  of  the  clan  .  258 

The  war-leader,  or  achcacauhtin  .  259 

The  civil  officials  .  260 

The  tribe  and  tribal  government  .  261 

The  tribe  and  the  phratry  .  261 

The  tribal  council  . 262 

The  head  war-chief  . ...: .  264 

Duality  of  the  office  . . . _ .  267 

The  “Snake-Woman”  .  267 

The  “Four  Quarters,”  or  phratries  . .  269 

The  “  Captains-general,  ”  or  phratry-captains  .  270 

Other  institutions  in  the  phratry  .  271 

Points  of  difficulty  .  272 

Conclusion  . 273 

Alphabetical  list  of  sources  cited  by  Bandelier  .  276 


INTRODUCTION 

There  are  two  widely  different  schools  of  doctrine  concerning  the 
political  and  social  institutions  which  the  Spaniards  encountered 
among  the  highly  civilized  natives  of  the  Mexican  plateau.  One  school 
consists  of  two  investigators,  Lewis  H.  Morgan1  and  A.  F.  Bandelier.2 

1  Ancient  Society,  New  York,  1877;  League  of  the  Iroquois,  New  York,  1904; 
“Montezuma’s  Dinner,”  in  North  American  Review,  April,  1876. 

2  “On  the  Art  of  War  and  Mode  of  Warfare  of  the  Ancient  Mexicans,” 
Reports  of  the  Peabody  Museum.  Harvard  University,  II,  95-161;  “On  the  Dis- 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Ethn.  [VoL  12 


250 

These  two  writers  consider  that  the  famous  Aztec  “empire”  was  not 
an  empire  at  all,  but  a  loose  confederacy  of  democratic  Indian  tribes. 
They  have  been  supported  in  more  recent  literature  by  John  Fiske, 
in  his  Discovery  of  America ,3  and  by  the  sentiments,  if  not  in  the 
published  writings,  of  most  American  ethnologists.  The  opposing 
school  consists,  broadly  speaking,  of  the  other  scholars  who  have 
written  on  the  subject. 3a  In  most  of  the  literature  which  concerns  the 
Aztecs  the  assumption  is  made  throughout  that  they  had  monarchical 
institutions.  The  “supreme  rulers”  of  the  Aztec  “empire”  are  rep¬ 
resented  in  some  very  recent  works  as  independent  monarclis,  keeping 
the  state  and  pomp  of  moguls.  Bandelier’s  papers  mentioned  above 
are  by  far  the  most  serious  contributions  to  the  subject.  He  makes 
an  effort  to  reconstruct  a  picture  of  the  entire  Aztec  social  order.  It 
is  the  purpose  of  the  present  paper  to  review  and  criticize  his  results. 
It  seems  simplest  to  consider  his  findings  with  reference  to  one  tribe, 
namely,  the  Mexicans,  or  inhabitants  of  Tenochtitlan.  His  own  ref¬ 
erences  to  the  original  sources  are  given  in  the  following  pages  in  the 
form  of  footnotes.  No  new  material  is  involved. 

A  word  might  be  said  in  the  beginning  about  Bandelier’s  method 
of  composing  his  papers.  We  conclude,  from  remarks  in  his  “Sources 
for  the  Aboriginal  History  of  Spanish  America,”4  that  it  was  his  habit 
first  to  write  a  paper  out  of  his  fund  of  general  information  on  a 
subject,  citing  authorities  only  on  special  points,  and  when  the  idea 
suddenly  occurred  to  him.  Then  he  went  through  the  paper  again 
and  worked  up  a  most  formidable  set  of  footnotes,  in  which  he  often 
embodied  the  results  of  further  research.  In  the  case  of  the  contri¬ 
butions  at  present  referred  to,  lie  wrote  three  papers  on  practically 
the  same  subject,  each  paper  more  elaborate  than  the  one  before.  The 
result  of  all  three  is  a  sort  of  complex,  full  of  statements  anticipatory 
of  other  statements,  and  statements  presupposing  a  knowledge  which 
the  reader  lacks,  a  complex  in  which  the  first  portion  is  unintelligible 
without  the  last,  while  the  last  presupposes  a  knowledge  of  the  first. 

Worse  than  all.  in  connection  with  some  essential  points,  the  author 
allows  himself  to  become  involved  in  contradictions.  Moreover,  he 
nowhere  gives  a  list  of  sources.  He  permits  himself  to  employ  such 

tribution  and  Tenure  of  Land  and  Customs  with  Respect  to  Inheritance  of  the 
Ancient  Mexicans,”  ibid.,  pp.  385-448;  ‘‘On  the  Social  Organization  and  Mode 
of  Government  of  the  Ancient  Mexicans,  ’  ’  ibid.,  pp.  557-669.  These  papers  are 
cited  as  Art  of  War,  Tenure  of  Land,  and  Mode  of  Government,  repectively. 

3  Cambridge,  Mass.,  1892. 

sa  An  honorable  exception  is  Beuehat,  Manuel  d’archeologie  americaine, 
Paris,  1912. 

1  Proceedings  of  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science, 
xxvii,  1878. 


1917] 


Waterman :  Mexican  Social  Organization 


251 


Table  Showing  Bandelier’s  Sources 

The  dates  indicate  in  each  case  the  period  when  composition  was  begun.  While 
the  dates  are  in  many  cases  conjectural,  the  general  order  is  approximately  correct. 
The  sources  which  seem  most  important  from  the  standpoint  of  ethnography  are  in¬ 
dicated  by  bold-face  type. 


Date 

1505 

1519 

1521 

1524 

1525 

1527 

1530 


1531 


1534 

1540 

1541 

1546 

1550 


1551 

1552 
1554 


1560 

1569 

1573 

1576 

1579 

1582 

1588 

1589 
1596 
1598 

1608 

1609 

1610 
1613 
1617 

1635 

1697 

1742 

1765 


Author 

Martyr,  Peter  (Pietro  Martire  d’Anghiera) 
Cortes,  Hernando 
Zuazo,  Alonzo  de 
Alvarado,  Pedro  de 

Oviedo  y  Valdez,  Gonzalo  Fernandez  de 
Anonymous  Conqueror,  The 
Las  Casas,  Bartoleme  de 

Merced  a  Hernan  Cortes  de  tierras 
inmediatas  de  Mexico,  etc. 

Cuarta  relacion  anonima  de  la  jornada  .  .  . 

a  Nueva  Galicia,  etc. 

Lettre  des  auditeurs  Salmeron,  Maldonado, 
Ceynos  et  Queroga 

Salmeron  (given  names  not  ascertained) 

Bologna,  Francisco  de 

Concilios  provinciales  .  .  .  de  Mexico 

Tapia,  Andres  de 
Aeazitli,  Francisco  de  Sandoval 
Motolinia  (Toribio  de  Benevente) 
Sahagun,  Bernardino  de 
Codex  Mendoza 
Codex  Ramirez 
Codex  Telleriano-Remensis 
Des  ceremonies  observes  .  .  .  lorsqu-ils 
falsa  ient  un  tecle 

De  l’ordre  de  succession  observe  par  les 
Indiens 

Molina,  Alonzo  de 
Mendoza,  Antonio  de 
Gomara,  Francisco  Lopez  de 
Relacion  de  las  ceremonias  y  ritos,  etc. 
Diaz  del  Castillo,  Bernal 
Anunciacion,  Domingo  de  la 
Lettre  des  chapelaiDS  Frere  Toribio  et 
Frere  Diego  d  ’Olarte 
Montufar,  Alonzo  de 
Zurita,  Alonzo  de 
Chavez,  Gabriel  de 
Mendieta,  Geronimo  de 
Camargo,  Domingo  Mufioz 
Palacio,  Diego  Garcia 
Duran,  Diego 
Pomar,  Juan  Bautista 
Acosta,  Jose  de  Salaman 
Torquemada,  Juan  de 
Herrera,  Antonio  de 
Tezozomoc,  Fernando  de  Alvarado 
Garcia,  Gregorio 
Ixtlilxochitl,  Fernando  de  Alva 
Solorzano  y  Pereyra,  Juan 
Eslava,  Fernan  Gonzalez  de 
Remesa],  Antonio  de 
Real  ejecutoria  de  S.  M.  sobre  tierras 
de  Axapusco 

Nieremberg,  Joan  Eusebius 
Vetancurt,  Augustin 
Padilla,  Matias  de  la  Mota 
Clavigero,  Francisco  Severio 


Title 

De  novo  orbe 

Cartas 

Carta 

Relacion  a  Hernan  Cortes 

Historia  general  y  natural,  etc. 
Relacion  de  algunas  cosas,  etc. 
Historia  de  las  Indias 


Lettre  ...  an  conseil  des  Indes 
Lettre,  etc. 

Relacion,  etc. 

Relacion  de  jornada,  etc. 

Historia  de  los  Indios 
Historia  general 


Vocabulario 

Avis  de  Vice-Roi,  etc. 

Historia  general 

Historia  verdadera 

Lettre,  etc. 


Supplique  a  Charles  V 
Breve  .  .  .  relacion  (Rapport) 
Rapport  sur  .  .  .  Meztitlan 
Historia  ecclesiastica 
Historia  .  .  .  de  Taxcallan 
San  Salvador  und  Honduras,  etc. 
Historia  de  las  Indias 
Relacion  de  Texcoco 
Historia  natural  y  moral 
.  .  .  monarchia  indiana 
Historia  .  .  .  de  los  hechos,  etc. 
Cronica  mexicana 
Origen  de  los  Indios 
Historia  Chichimeca 
.  .  .  de  Indiarum  jure 
Coloquios  espirituales 
Historia  .  .  .  de  Chyapa 


Historia  naturae 
Teatro  mexicano 
Historia  de  Nueva-Galicia 
Storia  antica  del  Messico 


252 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Ethn.  [Vol.  12 


baffling  expressions  as  “the  learned  friar,'’  or  “the  celebrated  Francis¬ 
can,”5  in  reference  to  a  literature  where  the  majority  of  the  important 
writers  are  both  friars  and  Franciscans.  Still  another  feature  of 
his  work  is  this,  that  when  he  is  in  search  of  corroboration  he  appeals 
impartially  to  authors  of  the  sixteenth,  and  of  all  subsequent  centuries 
up  to  the  end  of  the  nineteenth,  without  outward  preference  or  dis¬ 
tinction.  In  any  attempt  to  examine  his  findings  at  all  closely,  it  is 
therefore  necessary  to  have  at  hand  a  list  of  his  authorities.6  These 
authorities  appear  in  chronological  order  in  the  appended  tabulation. 
For  fuller  information  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  alphabetical  list 
at  the  end  of  the  present  paper,  and  to  the  usual  works  of  reference.7 


Clan  Organization  in  Ancient  Mexico 
In  attempting  to  review  the  results  of  Bandelier’s  investigations 
of  Mexican  social  organization,  it  seems  best  to  begin  with  that  element 
of  society  which  the  Indians  would  have  considered  the  fundamental 
one.  Mexico  City  was  more  than  a  city  in  our  sense  of  the  word.  It 
was  rather  on  the  order  of  a  city-state.  The  Mexicans  are  continually 
spoken  of  as  a  “tribe.”  We  may  regard  it  as  absolutely  certain  that 
this  tribe,  numbering  a  great  many  thousands  of  individuals,  was 
really  a  conglomerate  of  smaller  units.  In  fact,  continual  reference 
is  made  in  the  sources  to  smaller  social  groups  which  seem,  in  many 
ways,  to  be  of  really  fundamental  importance.  Nearly  all  authors, 
for  example,8  represent  the  Aztec  tribe  at  the  beginning  of  its  legend¬ 
ary  history  as  starting  off  on  its  migration  organized  in  kinship 
groups.  These  kins  are  worthy  of  careful  attention. 


5  Mode  of  Government,  p.  687,  note  276,  for  example. 

6  He  lias  two  papers  which  in  part  supply  this  need,  but  only  in  part.  One 
is  the  paper  on  ‘‘Sources  for  the  Aboriginal  History  of  Spanish  America,” 
mentioned  above  in  note  4.  The  other  is  ‘‘Notes  on  the  Bibliography  of  Yucatan 
and  Central  America,”  Proceedings  of  the  American  Antiquarian  Society,  n.  s., 
I,  82-118. 

7  For  example:  Sabin,  Dictionary  of  Works  Relating  to  America  from  the 
Discovery  to  the  Present  Time,  New  York,  1868-1891. 

Winsor,  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America,  especially  the  first  two 
volumes,  Boston,  8  volumes,  no  date. 

Ticknor,  History  of  Spanish  Literature,  Boston,  3  volumes,  1854,  especially 
the  fourth  edition,  Boston,  3  volumes,  no  date. 

Bancroft,  Works,  39  volumes,  San  Francisco,  1883-1890. 

Lehmann,  Progress  in  Mexican  Research,  Archiv  fiir  Anthropologie,  vi,  1907 ; 
reprinted  by  the  Due  de  Loubat,  Paris,  1909. 

Icazbalceta,  Bibliografia  Mexicana  del  Siglo  XVI,  Mexico,  1866. 

Weber,  Beitrage  zur  Charakteristik  der  alteren  Gesehiclitsschreiber  fiber 
Spanish-Amerika,  in  Beitrage  zur  Kulturgeschichte,  edited  by  Lamprecht,  xiv, 
Leipzig,  1911. 

8  Acosta,  Clavigero,  Duran,  Garcia,  Herrera,  Ixtlilxochitl,  Mendieta,  Sahagun, 
Torquemada,  Vetancurt. 


1917] 


Waterman:  Mexican  Social  Organization 


253 


There  is  considerable  variation  in  the  terms  employed  by  the  Span¬ 
iards  to  describe  these  units.  The  commonest  is  the  word  barrio, 
which  seems  to  mean  in  the  Spanish  of  the  period  a  city  ward  or 
precinct.  These  barrios  are  in  some  passages  called  parishes,  quar¬ 
ters,  or  parcialidades.  The  native  equivalent  is  given  by  Zurita9  as 
calpulli.  The  question  is,  just  exactly  what  is  meant,  in  modern  term¬ 
inology,  by  calpulli,  and  what  was  its  function?  Zurita  helps  us  out 
by  telling  us  that  “a  calpulli  is  what  the  Jews  called  a  tribe.”10  Ref¬ 
erence  to  the  early  books  of  the  Bible  will  indicate  that  the  Jewish 
tribe  was  believed  to  be  a  group  descended  from  one  ancestor.  Tor- 
quemada  also  describes  what  are  apparently  these  same  groups,  and 
says  that  they  are  based  on  the  central  idea  of  descent.* 11  First  of  all, 
then,  the  calpulli  was  an  organization  of  kin,  probably  what  modern 
ethnographers  would  speak  of  as  a  “clan.”  Zurita  in  another  place 
adds:  “The  word  calpulli  .  .  .  signifies  a  barrio  inhabited  by  a 
family,  known  as  of  very  ancient  origin,  which  for  a  long  time  owns 
a  territory  of  well-defined  boundaries,  and  all  the  members  of  which 
are  of  the  same  lineage.”12  Here,  then,  is  an  additional  trait  of  the 
calpulli — it  is  a  land-holding  organization.  “The  lands  do  not  belong 
to  each  inhabitant  of  the  village,”  says  Zurita,  “but  to  the  calpulli , 
which  possesses  them  in  common.”13  “Very  few  people,”  according  to 
Fuenleal,  “have  lands  of  their  own.  The  lands  are  held  in  common.”14 
This  fact  is  rendered  certain  enough  to  be  accepted  as  probably  charac¬ 
teristic  of  Mexican  society,  by  corroboration  by  a  number  of  authors.15 
Gomara  especially  says  that  “many  married  people  often  live  in  one 
house,  and  brothers  and  sisters  do  not  divide  their  lands.”  Peter 
Martyr  also  mentions  the  existence  of  communal  houses.18  Each  group 
of  kin  develops  garden  plots,17  which  are  called  collectively  “soil  of 
the  calpulli ,”18  Such  lands  could  in  no  manner  be  sold,  according  to 

9  Zurita,  p.  50.  For  exact  reference  see  the  list  of  sources  at  the  end  of  the 
present  paper. 

19  Zurita,  p.  53. 

11  Torquemada,  p.  545. 

12  Zurita,  p.  50. 

12  Zurita,  p.  51. 

F uenleal,  p.  253. 

15  Clavigero,  Book  7,  ch.  14;  Duran,  ch.  5;  Gomara,  p.  443;  Herrera,  pp.  135, 
190;  Martyr,  p.  228;  Oviedo,  Book  32,  ch.  51,  pp.  536,  537;  Torquemada,  p.  545, 
Book  2,  ch.  11,  Book  3,  chs.  13,  22. 

16  Peter  Martyr,  decade  5,  ch.  10. 

17  Acosta,  Book  7,  ch.  9,  p.  473;  Clavigero,  Book  2,  ch.  17;  Tezozomoc,  ch.  3, 
p.  8;  Torquemada,  Book  3,  ch.  33,  p.  291,  Book  2,  ch.  15,  p.  101. 

19  Txtlilxochitl,  ch.  35,  p.  242;  Zurita,  p.  51. 


254 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Ethn.  [Yol.  12 


the  passage  in  Clavigero,19  to  which  reference  was  made  above  (note 
3  5).  This  statement  on  the  part  of  Clavigero  is  corroborated  by  other 
authors.20  No  one  but  a  member  of  a  calpulli  had  the  right  to  settle 
on  any  of  its  lands.21  These  passages  bring  out  rather  clearly,  with 
regard  to  the  calpulli ,  that  there  was  involved,  in  addition  to  the  idea 
of  common  descent,  a  second  idea  that  we  often  find  associated  with 
the  clan-organization  of  other  and  ruder  tribes,  namely,  common  own¬ 
ership  of  land.  The  calpulli  appears  in  this  connection  quite  clearly 
as  analogous  to  the  clan,  as  found,  for  example,  among  the  Iroquois. 

The  fact  that  the  calpullis  were  really  fundamental  is  brought  out 
by  statements  such  as  this :  ‘ 1  Each  calpulli  was  sovereign  within  its 

own  limits.”22  “Each  quarter  had  its  own  soil  without  any  connection 
with  the  other.  ’  ’  This  means  that  Mexican  society  was  really  founded 
on  the  calpulli,  and  that  the  tribe  was  an  organization  made  up  of  a 
number  of  these  fundamental  units. 

Some  discrepancies  exist  in  the  references  to  ownership  of  lands. 
References  are  made  in  certain  places  to  “public”  or  communal  lands, 
and  elsewhere  to  private  holdings.  The  facts  probably  are  that  each 
calpulli ,  as  a  group,  controlled  certain  lands,  but  these  lands  were 
assigned  or  allotted  to  small  families  for  cultivation.23  These  lands 
could  not  be  sold  by  the  individual,  or  alienated  in  any  way.  This 
custom  has  an  analogy  in  the  agricultural  institutions  of  the  Iroquois, 
as  described  by  Morgan.24  The  evidence  for  this  arrangement  among 
the  Mexicans  is  found  in  Zurita,  and  confirmed  by  other  authors.25 
The  soil  was  certainly  occupied  by  individual  families,20  their  lots  or 
holdings  being  known  as  tlalmilli.27  The  right  of  occupancy  was  con¬ 
nected  with  inheritance.28  We  have  it  on  the  authority  of  one  author29 
that  if  a  man  neglected  for  two  years  to  cultivate  his  patch  it  was 

19  Clavigero,  Book  7,  ch.  14. 

20  Herrera,  decade  3,  Book  4,  ch.  15,  p.  135;  Torqnemada,  Book  14,  ch.  7,  p. 
545;  Zurita,  p.  52. 

21  Zurita,  p.  53. 

22  Clavigero,  Book  7,  eh.  14;  Zurita,  pp.  51,  65. 

23  Zurita,  pp.  52,  56,  57,  60;  De  l’ordre  de  succession,  pp.  223,  224. 

24  “Houses  and  House-Life  of  the  American  Aborigines,”  U.  S.  Department 
of  the  Interior,  Contributions  to  North  American  Ethnology,  iv,  79;  for  North 
American  tribes  in  general  see  Ancient  Society  by  the  same  author,  pp.  154-174. 

25  Zurita,  p.  55;  Clavigero,  Book  7,  ch.  14;  Herrera,  p.  135;  Torquemada, 
p.  545. 

29  Zurita,  pp.  52,  56,  57,  60;  De  l’ordre  de  succession,  pp.  223,  224. 

27  Molina. 

28  Clavigero,  Book  7,  ch.  14;  De  l’ordre  de  succession,  p.  224;  Fuenleal,  p. 
253;  Herrera,  p.  138;  Torquemada,  p.  545. 

29  Zurita,  p.  56. 


1917] 


Waterman:  Mexican  Social  Organization 


255 


assigned  or  allotted  to  someone  else.  When  a  family  disappeared,  the 
land  reverted  to  the  group.30  It  seems  most  reasonable  to  suppose, 
then,  that  the  calpullis,  as  groups,  held  tenure  of  the  land,  as  did  the 
Iroquois  elans ;  and  the  individuals  merely  occupied  portions  of  the 
soil  without  having  proprietary  rights.  There  were  certain  plots,  the 
produce  of  which  went  with  certain  offices,  but  the  evidence  concerning 
these  “official”  lands  is  very  uncertain,  and  they  may  probably  be 
passed  over  for  the  present  without  materially  affecting  the  picture 
of  Mexican  land  tenure.  The  calpulli,  whatever  it  may  have  been, 
certainly  exhibits  in  this  respect  a  very  fundamental  resemblance  to 
what  are  known  as  clans  in  the  ethnographical  literature  of  today. 

The  calpulli  was  involved  in  other  activities  than  the  ownership 
of  land.  Mexican  “armies”  are  represented  as  consisting  of  bands  of 
from  two  hundred  to  four  hundred  men.  It  is  plausible  to  suppose 
that  each  band  represented  the  fighting  force  of  one  calpulli.  Each 
group,  according  to  Duran,  carried  the  emblem  of  their  barrio.  Here 
we  see  another  likeness  to  the  clan — the  fact  that  the  group  made 
common  cause  in  warfare. 

There  are  two  additional  features  of  the  calpulli  which  make  the 
resemblance  to  the  typical  clan  more  striking  still.  Each  one  had  its 
own  god,  or  calpulteotzin,31  and  its  own  central  place  of  worship.32 
I  think  therefore  that  we  are  on  firm  ground  in  assuming  with  Ban- 
delier  that  Mexican  society,  at  the  time  of  the  Conquest,  was  still 
organized  on  a  primitive  clan  basis. 

We  come  now  to  the  question  of  the  number  of  these  calpullis. 
Twenty  “chiefs”  of  the  Mexicans  are  mentioned  in  some  of  the 
sources.33  This  would  suggest  the  existence  of  twenty  separate  units 
in  the  tribe.  Herrera,  speaking  of  the  “parishes”  ( calpullis ),  says 
that  there  were  “many.”34  Torquemada35  says  that  there  were  four 
general  divisions,  each  with  three  or  four  calpullis,  which  would  make 
a  total  of  perhaps  sixteen.  Bernal  Diaz  again  says  that  the  central 
governing  body  was  a  ‘  ‘  senate  ’  ’  of  twenty.36  On  a  priori  grounds  it 
seems  likely  that  each  clan  would  have  a  representative  in  such  a 
senate.  That  would  indicate  that  the  precise  number  was  probably 

so  Zurita,  p.  52. 

31  Duran,  p.  42. 

32  Herrera,  p.  188. 

33  Duran,  pp.  97,  98,  99.  Tezozomoe  also  might  be  cited. 

34  Herrera,  p.  188. 

35  Torquemada,  p.  545. 

so  Diaz,  p.  95. 


256 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Ethn.  [Yol.  12 


twenty.  The  number  is  given  as  twenty  by  Vetancurt.37  If  the  fore¬ 
going  passages  really  describe  the  facts,  the  fundamental  point  of 
Mexican  organization  is  that  the  nation  or  tribe  consisted  of  an  ag¬ 
glomerate  of  twenty  independent  clans.  However  elaborate  their 
government  may  have  been,  it  was  based  directly  on  a  clan  organi¬ 
zation.  Evidence  for  this  idea,  as  may  be  seen  by  consulting  the  table 
of  authors,  is  found  in  sources  of  the  best  character. 

In  connection  with  certain  governmental  and  deliberative  functions, 
each  of  the  calpullis  or  clans  just  described  had  a  council  bouse,  or 
tecpan.  Sometimes  these  were  themselves  called  merely  calpulli.  They 
contained  halls  and  a  tower.38 

Governmental  Functions  of  the  Clan 

It  remains  now  to  discuss  the  officials,  through  whom  the  govern¬ 
ment  was  administered.  It  seems  best,  first  of  all,  to  clear  the  ground 
as  far  as  we  can  of  certain  difficulties.  One  of  the  most  troublesome 
of  these  is  the  occurrence  of  contradictory  allusions  to  individuals, 
usually  referred  to  as  “chiefs,”  in  Aztec  tecuhtli. 

Honorary  Chiefs 

Consult:  Art  of  War,  pp.  117-120;  Mode  of  Government,  pp.  641-644. 

The  orthography  of  this  word  tecuhtli  shows  considerable  variety. 
The  proper  form  seems  to  be  the  one  given.  The  word  tecle,  used  by 
Mendieta,39  is  apparently  a  variant  of  the  same.  It  also  occurs  as 
tec,  tecutzin,  and  teutley.40  The  stem  means  in  Aztec  simply  “grand¬ 
father.  ’  ’ 

The  various  senses  in  which  this  term  is  used  by  the  Spanish 
chroniclers  leave  us  in  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  functions  of  the 
tecuhtli.  According  to  Bandelier,  it  seems  simplest  to  suppose  that 
the  tecuhtli  was,  after  all,  not  a  governmental  official.  He  insists 
(though  his  own  allusions  to  the  dignity  in  question  are  inconsistent) 
that  the  tecuhtlis  were  members,  we  might  say,  of  an  order  of  merit, 
which  was  awarded  especially  for  valor.  It  did  not  necessarily  en¬ 
title  the  holder  to  office,  or  to  authority  of  any  sort.  We  must  note, 
however,  that  the  chamber  where  the  principal  governing  body  met 
was  called  the  “place  of  tecuhtlis according  to  Bandelier ’s  etymol¬ 
ogy.41  While  the  situation  with  regard  to  the  tecuhtli  is  by  no  means 

37  Cited  in  vague  terms  by  Bandelier,  Mode  of  Government,  p.  592. 

33  Duran,  p.  215;  Herrera,  p.  190;  Tezozomoc,  p.  58;  Zurita,  p.  62. 

3»  Mendieta,  Book  2,  clis.  38,  39. 

•to  Zurita,  p.  47. 

4i  Mode  of  Government,  p.  406,  note  46. 


1917] 


Waterman  :  Mexican  Social  Organization 


257 


clear,  a  dozen  passages  may  be  cited  which  give  Bandelier ’s  conclusion 
some  authority.42  Offices  were  filled  mostly  by  these  “chiefs,”  or 
tecuhtli,4 3  perhaps  as  offices  in  this  country  after  the  Civil  War  were 
filled  largely  by  veterans.  In  Indian  society  especially  successful 
warriors  would  of  course  be  the  most  likely  aspirants  for  official  posi¬ 
tions.  The  position  or  dignity  was  held  for  life,  but  it  was  not  hered¬ 
itary.44  It  involved,  among  other  things,  great  outlay  for  feasts  on 
the  part  of  the  candidate.45  This  certainly  fits  in  with  what  we  know 
of  primitive  society  elsewhere  in  America — for  example,  on  the  North¬ 
west  coast,  where  rank  and  influence  are  connected  with  outlay  for 
entertainment.46  It  seems  probable,  on  the  wThole,  that  in  discussing 
the  governmental  offices  of  the  Aztecs,  these  “civil  chiefs,”  or  tecuhtli, 
are  to  be  ruled  out.  A  man  with  the  title  of  tecuhtli  might  fill  almost 
any  office ;  and  consequently  the  accounts  of  the  privileges  and  duties 
which  various  members  of  this  order  had,  involve  us  in  all  sorts  of 
difficulties.  It  seems  quite  likely  that  the  rank  of  tecuhtli  was  an 
honor,  not  an  office.  In  my  opinion,  Bandelier  does  not  establish  this 
fact  clearly,  but  at  least  it  is  a  plausible  theory. 

The  Clan  Council 

Consult:  Tenure  of  Land,  p.  425  and  notes;  Mode  of  Government,  p.  633,  espe¬ 
cially,  note  152,  which  occupies  two  pages. 

Bandelier  states  that  the  government  of  the  clan,  or  calpulli,  was  in 
the  hands  of  a  elan  council.  This  council,  he  says,  was  composed  of 
important  men  who  got  their  office  by  election.  For  none  of  these 
statements  has  he  any  proof.  There  is  one  passage  in  Sahagun47  which 
would  seem  perhaps  to  imply  the  existence  of  something  like  a  clan 
council.  A  council  of  the  kin  met  to  decide  quarrels  over  land,48  but 
it  had  no  final  authority.  Altogether,  evidence  for  the  existence  of  a 
clan  council,  as  a  definite  governing  institution,  is  of  a  most  vague 
and  unsatisfactory  sort.  The  best  indication  that  something  of  the 
sort  existed  is  a  statement  by  Zurita49  that  the  ‘  ‘  chief,  ’  ’  whoever  such 

42  Clavigero,  pp.  471,  472;  Gomara,  p.  436;  Herrera,  p.  135;  Mendieta,  pp.  156, 
161;  Torquemada,  pp.  361,  366;  Zurita,  pp.  47,  48. 

42  Gomara,  Mendieta,  Torquemada,  as  cited  above;  also  Camargo,  p.  176. 

44  Zurita,  p.  49. 

45  Des  ceremonies  observees,  p.  233;  Gomara,  p.  436;  Mendieta,  p.  156;  Zurita, 

p.  28. 

46  See,  for  example,  Boas  in  Beport  of  U.  S.  National  Museum  for  1895,  "The 
Social  Organization  and  Secret  Societies  of  the  Kwakiutl  Indians.” 

47  Sahagun,  p.  185. 

48  Zurita,  pp.  56,  62. 

4*>  Zurita,  pp.  55,  56,  60,  61,  62. 


258 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Ethn.  [Vol.  12 


an  officer  may  have  been,  did  nothing  without  consulting  the  other  old 
men  of  the  calpulli.  The  council  seems  to  have  been  a  general  assem¬ 
bly,  for  we  are  told  that  on  occasions  of  importance  the  clan  met  as  a 
whole.50  In  other  words,  what  we  have  in  Mexico  is  approximately 
what  we  find  in  the  history  of  our  own  ancient  ancestors,  namely,  that 
all  matters,  executive  or  judicial,  pertaining  to  the  group  were  settled 
in  an  undifferentiated  folk-moot.  If  a  more  definitely  organized  gov¬ 
erning  body  existed,  there  seems  to  be  very  little  evidence  of  it  in  the 
sources. 


Executive  Officers  of  the  Clan 

Consult:  Art  of  War,  pp.  101,  119  and  following;  Tenure  of  Land,  p.  425  and 
following;  Mode  of  Government,  pp.  591,  636  and  following,  647  and  fol¬ 
lowing. 

The  most  satisfying  statement  made  by  Morgan  concerning  Iro¬ 
quois  government  is  one  to  the  effect  that  there  was  a  primary 
specialization  of  offices  into  civil  offices  on  the  one  hand  and  military 
offices  on  the  other.  This  statement  gives  promise  of  reducing  the 
whole  governmental  establishment  to  a  definite  system.  Moreover,  the 
specialization  into  leaders  for  war  and  leaders  for  peace  seems  to  be 
logically  a  very  early  step  in  the  evolution  of  government.  In  spite 
of  this,  Bandelier,  in  speaking  of  Mexican  government,  closes  by  as¬ 
signing  the  civil  and  military  leadership  in  the  elan  to  one  person.51 
I  am  inclined  to  think  that  a  case  might  be  made  out  for  a  division  of 
the  clan  offices  into  military  and  civil  categories.  Fuenleal,  for  ex¬ 
ample,  says  that  there  are  two  officers,  “called  principales  or  chiefs,” 
in  “each  of  the  quarters  which  we  today  call  parishes.”52  He  is  borne 
out  in  this  statement  by  Torquemada  and  Zurita,53  the  former  saying 
that  each  barrio  or  parcialidad  (meaning  almost  certainly  the  clan, 
or  calpulli)  has  two  officers,  a  gatherer  of  stores  and  “a  regidor,  or 
tecuhtli.”  The  Simancas  manuscript  also  speaks  of  alcaldes  and 
regulars  of  the  villages,54  saying  that,  an  Aztec  official  called  achca- 
caulitis  was  the  alcalde,  or  judge,  while  the  Aztec  achcacauhtin  was 
the  alguazil,  or  sheriff.  It  is  important,  it  seems  to  me,  to  recognize 
this  differentiation  in  the  offices  of  the  clan. 

so  Zurita,  p.  62;  Fuenleal,  p.  249. 

si  Tenure  of  Land,  p.  425. 

52  Fuenleal,  p.  249. 

53  Torquemada,  p.  544;  Zurita,  p.  225. 

si  De  1  ’ordre  de  succession,  p.  225. 


1917] 


Waterman  :  Mexican  Social  Organization 


'259 


The  War-Leader,  or  Achcacauhtin 
One  at  least  of  the  clan  officers  we  can  identify  quite  readily.  His 
existence  is  very  frequently  mentioned.  He  enjoys,  however,  a  wide 
variety  of  titles  in  the  Spanish  works.  Some  of  the  most  important 
are  shown  in  the  following  list.  All  of  these  titles  seem  to  apply  to 
one  official. 

Titles  Applied  to  the  “Clan  War-Leader’’  by  Different  Authors 


Title  applied 

Author 

Pariente  mayorss 

Zurita 

Chief  abbot 

Mendieta 

Alguacil  mayoi'56 

Torquemada 

Leader  in  the  fight 

Tezozomoc 

Captain  of  the  people 

Molina 

Priest 

Mendieta 

Principal  and  master-at-arms 

Tezozomoc 

Chief  of  the  quarter 

Tezozomoc 

Master  of  the  youth 

Teacher 

Tezozomoc 

Captain  of  the  guard 

Torquemada 

Prince 

Clavigero 

Old  man 

Fuenleal 

Valiant  man 

Sahagiin 

Officer  to  whom  the  youths  were  entrusted 

Clavigero 

Captain 

Tezozomoc 

Regidor 

Torquemada 

It  is  obvious  at  once  that  to  get  any  clear  idea  of  the  function  of 
an  officer  who  is  called  at  once  a  captain  of  the  guard  and  an  abbot, 
involves  some  difficulty.  The  dignitary  in  question  was  evidently  an 
official  who  had  no  counterpart  in  societies  with  which  the  Spaniards 
were  familiar.  His  native  title  was  achcacauhtin ,57  which  means 
simply  “elder  brother.”  One  of  his  duties  was  to  lead  the  clan  in 
battle58  and  to  instruct  the  young  men  of  the  clan  in  warlike  exercises.59 
These  achcacauhtins  got  their  office  by  election,90  though  the  details 
of  this  election  are  quite  uncertain.61  Perhaps  this  rather  uncertain 

55  Zurita  says  he  was  like  the  “pariente  mayor’’  in  the  mountains  of  Biscay'. 
I  would  not  attempt  to  say  what  the  term  means. 

56  The  exact  implication  of  this  word  also  is  somewhat  uncertain. 

57  De  1’ordre  de  succession,  etc.,  p.  225;  Molina,  p.  113;  Sahagiin,  p.  305; 
Torquemada,  p.  355;  Tezozomoc,  pp.  24,  25;  Zurita,  p.  60. 

58  Authority  almost  entirely  wanting.  See  Art  of  War,  p.  119  and  following. 
50  Tezozomoc,  chs.  17,  38,  57. 

so  Molina,  p.  113. 

6i  It  is  referred  to  in  general  terms  in  De  1’ordre  de  succession,  p.  225; 
Herrera,  p.  125;  Zurita,  p.  60. 


260 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Etlm.  [Yol.  12 


evidence  will  at  least  enable  ns  to  conclude  that  there  was  a  clan  official 
called  the  “elder  brother,”  who  had  duties  in  a  general  way  of  military 
sort,  which  he  may  have  combined  with  ceremonial  functions. 

The  Civil  Officials 

Consult:  Tenure  of  Land,  p.  425  and  following;  Mode  of  Government,  pp.  637, 
639  and  following. 

Mention  is  made  in  the  sources  of  three  different  functions  besides 
the  one  just  mentioned:  that  of  calpullec,  or  head  of  the  clan;  that  of 
tlatoani,  or  “speaker,”  a  sort  of  delegate  who  represented  the  interests 
of  the  clan  in  the  larger  assemblies ;  and  that  of  ‘  ‘  steward,  ’  ’  or  super¬ 
visor  of  stores.  Bandolier  insists  that  the  calpullec  and  the  “speaker” 
were  different  officers.62  Fuenleal,  however,  lumps  them  simply  as 
“other  officers  called  viejos.”63  Zurita,  moreover,  says  that  the 
calpullec  spoke  for  members  of  the  calpulli  “before  the  governors.”64 
This  particular  passage  would  seem  to  suggest  that  the  calpullec  and 
the  speaker  "were  the  same  individual.  While  it  is  perhaps  impossible 
to  get  a  clear  impression  from  the  sources,  it  would  certainly  make 
the  whole  scheme  of  government  appear  more  symmetrical  to  suppose 
that  there  was  one  clan  official  who  looked  out  for  all  clan  business 
that  was  not  specifically  military.  Whether  the  Aztecs  cared  for 
symmetry  in  their  government  is,  naturally,  another  question.  Ban¬ 
dolier  thinks  that  at  least  the  calpullec  and  the  “steward”  may  have 
been  the  same  official. 

With  the  word  calpullec  is  associated  the  supervision  and  distri¬ 
bution  of  lands.65  In  this  connection  the  calpullec  kept  records  in  the 
ancient  picture-writing.66  He  seems  to  have  supervised  the  stores  of 
grain  belonging  to  the  kin  or  clan,  for  he  is  spoken  of  as  “providing” 
food  for  the  religious  festivals.67  One  man  coidd  hardly  have  done 
so  out  of  his  private  stores,  so  the  statement  probably  implies  that  he 
had  charge  of  public  supplies.  It  is  very  likely  that  these  supplies 
were  in  part  in  the  nature  of  tribute  from  conquered  groups.  The 
office,  whatever  it  implied,  was  held  for  life  or  good  behavior,68  and 

62  Mode  of  Government,  p.  639. 

63  P.  249. 

64  Pp.  60,  61,  62. 

os  Zurita,  pp.  61,  62. 

66  Clavigero,  Book  7,  eh.  14;  Mendieta,  p.  135;  Sahagun,  p.  304;  Torquemada, 
p.  546. 

or  Herrera,  p.  134;  Zurita,  pp.  51-66. 

68  Herrera,  p.  125;  Zurita,  pp.  60,  61. 


1917] 


Waterman  :  Mexican  Social  Organisation 


261 


was  vested  in  a  man  by  election.  According  to  Zurita,39  when  a 
calpullec  died  they  elected  the  most  respected  old  man,  who  was  often 
a  son  or  other  near  relative  of  the  former  functionary. 

There  was  undoubtedly  an  office  known  as  that  of  tlatoani,  or 
“speaker.”  Each  of  these  “speakers”  was  elected  by  his  own 
calpulli ,70  and  while  the  tenure  ordinarily  was  permanent,  he  could 
be  removed,  according  to  Zurita,71  by  the  proper  measures.  The  ex¬ 
istence  of  “speakers”  is  referred  to  by  several  other  authors.72  Ac¬ 
cording  to  Bandelier,  the  tribal  council  consisted  of  the  speakers  from 
each  clan,  a  total  of  twenty  in  all.73  If  these  three  offices  were  sep¬ 
arate,  there  was  certainly  not  much  balance  in  the  Aztec  arrangement, 
since  one  military  leader  is  offset  by  three  civil  officers.  In  any  case, 
it  is  obvious  that  the  clan  was  well  provided  with  officials,  and  the  clan 
itself  constituted  an  important  and  highly  functional  element  of  the 
Aztec  social  order. 


The  Tribe  and  Tribal  Government 
The  Tribe  and  the  Phratry 

It  is  rather  hard  to  present  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  relation  of 
the  clans  to  Mexican  society  as  a  whole,  for  the  reason  that  these  clans 
entered  into  combinations  of  two  different  sorts.  Twenty  clans  to¬ 
gether  made  up  the  tribe,  which  was,  from  certain  points  of  view,  the 
next  largest  unit  above  the  clan.  The  clans  seem  to  have  been  directly 
active  in  tribal  government.  On  the  other  hand,  for  certain  ceremonial 
and  military  purposes,  these  clans  are  grouped  into  phratries,  of  which 
there  were  four  in  all.  The  term  “phratry”  does  not  occur  in  the 
sources,  but  it  is  the  term  which  would  probably  be  applied  by  modern 
ethnographers.74  In  the  literature  the  units  we  have  described  as 
phratries  are  called  “major  quarters.”  For  certain  purposes,  then, 
the  clans  were  considered  as  a  group  of  twenty  (the  tribe).  For 
other  purposes  they  were  grouped  into  four  large  brotherhoods  (the 
phratries).  The  usual  notion  is  that  the  phratries  were  originally  clans 

89  Loc.  cit. 

to  Zurita,  p.  60. 

71  Op.  cit.,  p.  61. 

72  Bernal  Diaz,  p.  32;  Molina,  vol.  1,  p.  108,  vol.  2,  p.  14;  Pimentel,  p.  174; 
Sahagun,  p.  314;  Torquemada,  pp.  355,  626;  Zurita,  p.  43. 

72  See  below,  MS  p.  28. 

74  It  is  used  already  by  Morgan,  “Houses  and  House-Life  of  the  American 
Aborigines,’’  U.  S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Contributions  to  North  American 
Ethnology,  IV,  14-15;  Ancient  Society,  p.  157. 


262 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Ethn.  [Yol.  12 


which  divided,  by  segmentation,  each  into  four  or  five,  thus  making 
the  twenty  elans  as  they  were  at  the  time  of  the  Conquest.  Even  if 
this  is  their  actual  history,  for  purposes  of  presentation  it  is  simpler 
to  discuss  first  the  tribe  and  its  various  officers,  and  proceed  to  the 
phratries  later. 

The  Tribal  Council 

Consult:  Art  of  War,  pp.  101,  119  and  following;  Tenure  of  Land,  p.  425  and 
eially  note  16;  Art  of  War,  pp.  127-129  with  notes,  160. 

The  Mexicans,  as  a  tribe,  are  usually  considered  to  have  been  ruled 
by  a  despot.  The  principal  contribution  of  Morgan  and  Bandelier  to 
the  subject  lies  in  their  critical  examination  of  this  idea.  The  supreme 
authority,  according  to  Bandelier,  was  vested,  not  in  any  despot,  but 
in  a  “council”  or  “senate”  of  important  men,  one  from  each  of  the 
independent  clans.  These  men,  as  far  as  their  function  in  the  council 
was  concerned,  were  called  tlatoani,  or  “speakers.”  This  council,  in 
Bandelier ’s  opinion,  is  the  most  important  thing  in  the  Aztec  govern¬ 
mental  system. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  sources  that  they  say  rather  more  about 
the  condition  of  the  Mexicans  in  the  traditional  period  before  the 
founding  of  the  city  than  about  the  actual  social  order  which  was  in 
existence  at  the  time  of  the  Conquest.  Even  statements  concerning 
the  Mexicans  and  their  political  arrangements  while  in  the  semi- 
mythical  migration  period  are  interesting.  Although  without  historical 
value,  such  statements  probably  reflect  later  conditions,  contempor¬ 
aneous  with  the  life  of  the  authors.  Conditions  late  in  chronological 
order  were  probably  read  back  into  the  semi-mythical  period.  Hence, 
when  authors,  in  describing  the  period  of  wandering,  refer  to  govern¬ 
ment  by  a  council,  it  shows  at  least,  that  the  idea  of  a  governing  council 
was  well  known.  The  various  statements  concerning  the  number  of 
councilors  who,  in  the  prehistoric  period,  made  up  this  governing  body 
are  not  in  accord.  Perhaps  the  best  way  of  presenting  the  data  is  to 
put  various  references  in  the  form  of  a  tabulation.  In  passing,  it 

Number  op  Members  op  the  Supreme  Council  in  the  Traditional  Period, 
According  to  Different  Sources 

Number  of  members  in 


Author 

Pnge 

the  supreme  council 

Clavigero 

190 

20 

Duran 

47 

10  (6  chiefs,  4  priests) 

Duran 

7 

Garcia 

Book  5,  ch.  3 

20 

Mendieta, 

148 

10 

Tezozonibc 

7 

Torquemada 

94,  289,  290, 

291  20 

1917] 


Waterman:  Mexican  Social  Organization 


263 


must  be  observed  that  a  large  number  of  authors  mention  no  council 
at  all  in  connection  with  this  period,  but  picture  the  tribe  as  under  the 
government  of  one  chief,  or  king. 

Whatever  the  facts  about  this  traditional  period  may  be,  at  the 
time  of  the  Conquest  there  was  almost  certainly  a  council  with  im¬ 
portant  powers.  The  thousands  of  persons  making  up  the  tribe  could 
not  have  congregated  in  one  immense  public  gathering  for  the  suc¬ 
cessful  transaction  of  business.  The  idea  that  the  authority  of  this 
council  was  supreme  rests  on  a  number  of  passages.  They  show  that 
the  “king,”  or  chief,  did  not  govern  the  tribe  entirely  on  his  own 
responsibility.75 

Admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  this  council  existed,  its 
make-up  is  by  no  means  clear.  Sahagun,  describing  a  council  which 
met  for  the  election  of  a  war-chief,  mentions  that  it  was  composed  of 
“old  men,  officers,  and  medicine-men.”76  Torquemada,  in  one  of  the 
passages  cited  just  above  (note  75),  mentions  the  fact  that  old  women 
were  also  included.77  This  seems  to  mean,  in  other  words,  that  any¬ 
one  who  considered  himself  of  sufficient  importance  to  have  an  opinion 
worth  delivering  might  appear  at  the  council  and  make  himself 
heard.  It  is  entirely  possible  that  all  actual  formal  decisions  were  an¬ 
nounced  by  duly  recognized  officials.  From  what  we  know  of  Indian 
government  elsewhere,  it  seems  probable  that  these  officials  announced 
the  popular  verdict,  instead  of  deciding  each  point  on  their  own 
authority.  The  number  of  such  duly  recognized  officials  is  variously 
given.  Bernal  Diaz  mentions  twenty  “grand  lords,”  a  passage  which 
sounds  as  though  it  might  be  a  reference  to  a  supreme  council.78 
Duran,  however,  refers  to  “grand  lords,  twelve  in  number.”79  Ixtlil- 
xochitl,  as  if  bent  on  confusing  the  matter  still  more  thoroughly, 
mentions  fourteen  “great  lords.”80  Tezozomoc  mentions  first  twelve, 
and  then  raises  the  number  to  fifteen.81  In  view  of  the  fact  that  twenty 
clans  are  more  consistently  mentioned  than  any  other  number,  while 
there  is  at  least  some  evidence  for  councilors  to  the  number  of  twenty, 

75  Acosta,  pp.  411,  477;  De  1  ’ordre  de  succession,  p.  228;  Diaz,  pp.  191,  194; 
Duran,  pp.  103,  108,  117,  1133;  Fragmento  1,  pp.  124,  125;  Fragmento  2,  p.  147; 
Gomara,  p..442;  Herrera,  p.  76;  Mendieta,  p.  129;  Tezozomoc,  pp.  11,  12,  13,  172; 
Torquemada,  pp.  352,  537. 

70  Sahagun,  p.  318. 

77  Torquemada,  p.  537. 

7«  Bernal  Diaz,  ch.  95;  eh.  97,  p.  99. 

78  Duran,  p.  215. 

so  Ixtlilxochitl  (a),  p.  236. 

si  Tezozomoc,  p.  57. 


264 


University  of  Californio  Publications  in  Am,  Arch,  and  Ethn.  [  Vo'l.  12 


it  is  perhaps  safest  to  put  two  and  two  together  and  regard  the  council 
as  made  up  of  twenty  clan  representatives.  At  any  rate,  this  is 
Bandolier’s  conclusion. 

When  we  come  to  the  question  of  how  often  the  council  met,  the 
evidence  is  not  quite  so  conflicting.  The  appropriate  citations  of 
authority  may  also  be  presented  in  the  form  of  a  table. 


Meetings  of  the  Tribal  Council 


Author 

Clavigero 

Ixtlilxochitl 

Gomara 

Mendieta 

Torquemada 

Zurita 


Page  Periodic  meetings 

482  Once  every  Mexican  “month”  (20  days) 

267,  268,  269  Every  twenty  days 

442  Once  a  month  (every  30  days?) 

135  Every  ten  or  twelve  days 

355  Every  ten  days  (“later  every  twelve  days”) 

101  Every  twelve  days 


Meetings,  however,  could  apparently  he  called  in  an  emergency.82 
Bernal  Diaz  mentions  daily  meetings  during  Cortes’  first  stay  in 
Mexico.83  I  should  say  that  we  are  entitled  to  conclude,  on  the  basis 
of  this  evidence,  that  a  council  existed  in  ancient  Mexico  which  had 
extremely  wide  powers.  There  is  even  a  strong  presumption  that,  it 
constituted  a  higher  authority  than  any  other  body  or  any  individual. 


The  Head  War-Chief 

Consult:  Art  of  War,  pp.  123,  129;  Mode  of  Government,  pp.  588,  592,  645,  659, 
666,  667,  668,  670;  Tenure  of  Land,  pp.  391,  397,  407. 

As  for  the  executive  officers  of  the  tribe,  we  can  recognize  at  least 
two.  There  was  certainly  in  the  Mexican  tribe  an  important  leader 
whom  we  may  call  the  Head  War-Chief.  The  other  official  we  will 
refer  to  in  a  moment.  The  existence  of  this  head  war-chief  does  not 
need  to  be  discussed.  All  the  literature  on  the  Aztecs,  even  the  oldest 
accounts,  abounds  in  mention  of  various  men  who  held  the  office.  The 
last  three  of  the  list  are  actual  historical  characters  and  had  official 
dealings  with  Cortes  and  the  Spaniards.  Question  arises  only  with 
regard  to  the  precise  nature  of  their  office.  There  is  considerable 
evidence  noted  above,  on  page  263,  that  the  council  was  above  all  other 
agencies  of  government.  The  war-chief  in  addition  could  not  de- 

82  Codex  Ramirez,  pp.  52,  62,  66,  67,  80;  Fragmento  1,  pp.  124,  127 ;  Fragmento 
2,  pp.  137,  147. 

88  Diaz,  p.  95. 


1917] 


Waterman:  Mexican  Social  Organization 


265 


clare  war,  which  was  the  prerogative  of  the  council.84  Since  that  is 
the  case,  the  head  war-chief  obviously  was  not  a  ruler,  nor  a  despot, 
nor  a  monarch,  in  the  European  sense  of  the  word.  Another  most 
important  fact  in  connection  with  the  possible  question  of  supremacy 
between  the  council  and  the  war-chief  is  the  fact  that  the  war-chief¬ 
tainship  was  an  elective  office.  The  fact  that  the  war-chief  was  elected 
is  common  knowledge,  and  it  is  mentioned  or  referred  to  in  practi¬ 
cally  all  the  literature.85  The  significance  of  this  fact  is  often  passed 
by.  It  certainly  makes  a  sharp  distinction  between  the  Aztec  leaders 
and  the  European  monarchs  of  the  same  period.  No  real  monarch 
can  be  elected,  it  seems  to  me,  the  example  of  the  kings  of  Poland  and 
the  emperors  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  to  the  contrary  notwith¬ 
standing.  The  kings  of  Poland  were,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  kings  only 
in  name ;  and  the  same  might  be  said  with  regard  to  the  German 
emperors.  The  head  war-chief  had  the  title  in  Aztec  of  tlacntecuhtli, 
translated  ‘  ‘  chief  of  men.  ’  ’  He  was  also  known  as  ‘  ‘  speaker  ’  ’  ( tlatoani, 
degenerated  sometimes  to  tetuan).86  His  principal  office  was  to  lead 
warriors  to  battle.87  It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  insist  with  Bandelier 
that  the  head  war-chief  was  not  a  king. 

The  fact  of  election  is  amply  supported.88  One  authority  says  that 
he  was  elected  by  the  tribal  council.89  Sahagun,  however,  who  gives 
much  the  fullest  information  on  such  points,  says  that  the  war-chief 
was  elected  by  a  “junta”  of  speakers,  clan  chiefs,  old  leaders,  and 
priests,  not  by  ballot,  but  unanimously.90  Of  the  two,  the  latter  state¬ 
ment  seems  much  the  more  reasonable.  It  is  supported  by  the  Codex 
Mendoza,91  and  by  a  statement  in  Duran.02  A  similar  statement  is 
also  made  concerning  the  “kings”  of  Tezcoco,  a  city  which  was  a  close 
neighbor  and  ally  of  Mexico.93  Duran,  in  particular,  emphasizes  the 

84  Duran,  p.  204;  Tezozomoc,  pp.  55,  56.  The  Codex  Mendoza,  pi.  67,  is  cited 
by  Bandelier.  The  commentary  on  this  plate  (Kingsborough,  vol.  6,  p.  74)  offers, 
however,  nothing  very  conclusive. 

85  Cf.  note  93. 

80  Fuenleal,  p.  247;  the  “speaker”  is  described  by  Bandelier  as  one  of  the 
civil  officials  in  the  case  of  the  clan. 

87  Acosta,  p.  431;  Mendieta,  p.  132. 

88  For  example,  Acosta,  p.  431;  Clavigero,  p.  463;  Codex  Mendoza,  pi.  2; 
Codex  Bamirez,  p.  58;  De  1 ’ordre  de  succession,  p.  228;  Duran,  pp.  103,  498; 
Mendieta,  pp.  148,  153,  154;  Sahagun,  pp.  136-139,  318;  Tezozomoc,  pp.  142,  143; 
Torquemada,  p.  358;  Zurita,  p.  14. 

89  De  1 ’ordre  de  succession,  p.  228. 

90  Sahagun,  p.  318. 

91  Codex  Mendoza,  pi.  2. 

92  Duran,  p.  53,  describing  the  election  of  “Hummingbird,”  in  the  year  1396 
(traditional  chronology). 

98  Duran,  p.  496;  Ixtlilxochitl  (a),  ehs.  76,  88;  Mendieta,  p.  153;  Pomar; 
Sahagun,  p.  318,  Book  8,  eh.  30;  Tezozomoc,  chs.  101,  102;  Torquemada,  pp.  357, 
358,  359. 


266 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Etlm.  [Yol.  12 


importance  of  election,  and  the  non-operation  of  the  principle  of 
heredity,  in  Indian  government.04  He  is  borne  out  by  Vetancurt, 
Torquemada,  and  Zurita.95  Bandelier  has  some  evidence,  therefore, 
for  his  statement  that  the  Mexican  leaders  were  not  kings. 

If  the  head  war-chief  was  elected,  the  question  at  once  arises:  Who 
were  eligible  for  the  office?  The  fact  is  that  the  choice  was  limited 
to  one  group,  which  consisted  of  a  whole  family  or  lineage.  This  is 
stated  by  a  large  number  of  good  authorities.90  Duran,  according  to 
Bandelier,97  states  emphatically  that  a  son  did  not  follow  his  father 
in  office,  unless  duly  elected  to  it.  Pomar  says  concerning  the  Tezcu- 
cans  that  they  elected,  as  war-chief,  any  one  of  an  entire  kin.98  The 
best  evidence  of  all  in  this  connection  is  the  actual  list  of  war-chiefs, 
in  which  men  are  not  by  any  means  regularly  followed  in  office  by 
their  sons.  The  sons  of  such  officials,  moreover,  were  brought  up  as 
private  citizens,  not  as  heirs-apparent  to  an  office.  They  became 
singers  or  followed  other  professions.99  To  put  the  facts  briefly,  the 
office  of  head  war-chief  was  actually  elective,  but  at  the  same  time  it 
was  hereditary  within  a  group.  The  nature  of  this  group  is  not  clear. 
It  may  even  have  been  some  certain  one  of  the  clans. 

Bandelier  makes  much  of  the  point  that  the  last  head  war-chief, 
Montezuma,  was  deprived  of  his  office  by  the  Mexicans.  There  is  little 
question  about  -the  facts.100  The  circumstances,  however,  were  alto¬ 
gether  unusual.  The  Spaniards  were  in  the  city,  and  Montezuma  was 
in  their  power  and  was  prevented  from  discharging  his  office.  Under 
the  circumstances,  it  is  not  surprising  that  they  chose  another  leader. 
The  fact  does  not  prove  the  existence  of  machinery  for  the  “recall” 
of  an  unpopular  war  leader.  Herrera  says  that  among  the  Quiche 
there  was  a  “king,”  but  that  the  heads  of  families  had  a  right  to  put 
him  to  death  for  misdemeanor.101  The  existence  of  such  a  custom  in 
connection  with  a  “king”  would  indicate  that  the  Spaniards  did  not 
mean  to  be  taken  literally  in  their  application  of  the  word  to  Indian 

94  Duran,  pp.  103  and  490  especially. 

93  Vetancurt,  quoted  in  Kingsborough,  viii,  124:  Torquemada,  pp.  358,  359; 
Zurita,  pp.  18,  19. 

96  Acosta,  pp.  439,  440;  Clavigero,  p.  463;  Codex  Ramirez,  p.  58;  Duran,  pp. 
103,  498,  499;  Sahagun,  p.  318;  Torquemada,  p.  358;  Zurita,  pp.  12,  14. 

97  Duran,  p.  103,  cited  just  above. 

9s  The  passage  is  not  cited  by  Bandelier,  and  it  is  contradicted  by  Torque¬ 
mada,  pp.  357,  358,  359. 

99  Sahagun,  Book  5,  cli.  3;  Tezozomoc,  p.  143. 

199  Bernal  Diaz,  p.  132;  Cortes,  pp.  41,  42;  Codex  Ramirez,  p.  89;  Fragmento 
2,  p.  143;  Herrera,  pp.  264,  267;  Las  Casas,  p.  49;  Sahagun,  pp.  28,  29;  Torque¬ 
mada,  pp.  494,  497;  Vetancurt,  pp.  125,  130,  131. 

101  Herrera,  p.  386. 


1917] 


Waterman:  Mexican  Social  Organisation 


267 


affairs.  The  existence  of  the  right  to  kill  a  king  certainly  involves  a 
logical  contradiction. 


Duality  of  the  Office 

Another  interesting  point  about  the  office  of  war-chief,  which  makes 
clear  the  fact  that  it  is  not  comparable  to  a  monarchical  institution,  is 
that  the  office  was  dual.  Alongside  of  the  “chief  of  men”  there  was 
another  official  with  practically  equal  powers.  The  second  official  held 
the  extraordinary  title  of  “Snake-Woman.”  The  custom  of  having 
two  chief  officials  seems  to  be  quite  typical  of  the  plateau  tribes,  and 
perhaps  of  Middle-American  societies  in  general.  For  example,  there 
were  two  head  chiefs  in  Tlaseala.102.  The  same  might  be  said  of 
Xochimilco,103  of  Chaleo,104  of  the  Totonacs,105  and  of  the  tribes  of 
Guatemala.100  At  Matlatzinco,  according  to  Zurita,107  there  were  three 
chiefs  who  held  office  by  turns.  It  is  stated  by  one  historian  that 
this  duality  or  plurality  in  leadership  was  common  to  every  Mexican 
tribe.108  It  was  the  custom  among  the  Iroquois,  as  is  well  known,  to 
appoint  an  assistant  or  helper  for  each  important  official. 

The  “Snake-Woman” 

Consult:  Art  of  War,  p.  124;  Social  Organisation,  pp.  660-667. 

We  know  relatively  little  about  the  “  Snake-Woman,  ”  or  coadjutor 
to  the  head  war-chief,  except  that  the  office  existed.  No  plausible 
explanation  has  ever  been  offered  for  the  extraordinary  title.  I  think 
the  first  point  to  be  emphasized  is  that  the  snake-woman  was  apparently 
equal  to  the  “king,”  or  head  war-chief,  in  rank.  This  is  stated  by  a 
number  of  good  authorities.100  (See  Social  Organization,  p.  665,  note 
221.)  He  is  referred  to  as  “coadjutor  to  the  king,”  or  “second 
king.”110  Moreover,  certain  insignia  were  common  to  these  two  offi- 

102  Anonymous  Conqueror,  p.  388;  Bernal  Diaz,  p..  60;  Cortes,  pp.  18,  46; 
Gomara,  p.  332;  Motolinia,  pp.  229,  230;  Oviedo,  p.  372;  Tezozomoc,  pp.  150,  152; 
Torquemada,  p.  347  (mentions  four,  not  two). 

102  Duran,  p.  104;  Tezozomoc,  p.  25. 

104  Bernal  Diaz,  pp.  154,  155;  Duran,  p.  134;  Tezozomoc,  pp.  33,  36. 

105  Duran,  pp.  181,  206. 

ice  Bernal  Diaz,  p.  220  (see  also  the  Popul  Vuh,  Paris,  edited  by  Brasseur  de 
Bourbourg,  1861,  p.  339). 

107  Zurita,  p.  389. 

108  Herrera,  p.  141;  confirmed  by  Tezozomoc. 

109  Acosta,  p.  494;  Codex  Ramirez,  p.  66;  Duran,  pp.  215,  255;  Fragmento  1; 
Tezozomoc,  pp.  53,  58,  66;  Torquemada,  p.  352;  Vetaneurt,  p.  369. 

110  By  the  Codex  Ramirez,  Duran,  and  Tezozomoc,  especially. 


268 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Ethn.  [Vol.  12 


eials,  and  were  worn  by  no  others.  Among  them  was  the  copilli,111 
the  so-called  royal  crown  (a  curious  head-ornament  of  metal,  rising 
over  the  forehead),  and  a  certain  style  of  dress.112  Both  the  chief  of 
men  and  the  snake-woman  had  commemorative  carvings,113  and  the 
same  burial  rites.114  The  snake-woman  did  not,  however,  have  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  functions.  We  are  quite  uncertain,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
just  what  his  functions  were.  The  Spaniards  applied  to  the  office 
various  terms,  which  may  perhaps  be  presented  in  tabular  form. 


Titles  Applied  to  the  “Snake  Woman’’  by  the  Spaniards 


Title  given 

Author 

Page 

Coadjutor  to  the  king 

Codex  Ramirez 

* 

Coadjutor  to  the  king 

Duran 

* 

Coadjutor  to  the  king 

Tezozomoc 

48 

Viceroy 

Torquemada 

352 

Viceroy 

Vetaneurt 

369 

Supreme  judge 

Clavigero 

481 

Supreme  judge 

Codex  Mendoza 

pi.  69 

Supreme  judge 

Torquemada 

352 

Supreme  judge 

Vetaneurt 

369 

Mayordomo 

Bernal  Diaz 

87 

Captain-General 

Cortes 

89,  90 

Captain-General 

Gomara 

392 

Captain-General 

Tezozomoc 

48 

Principal  councilor  and  lieutenant 

Herrera 

53 

Principal  councilor  and  lieutenant 

Tezozomoc 

57 

Captain 

Torquemada 

567 

General  and  auditor 

Tezozomoc 

32 

Presidente 

Tezozomoc 

48 

Governor  of  Mexico 

Relaeion  de  Jornada 

315,47 

*  See  Mode  of  Government,  note  210. 

It  is  very  hard  to  form  a  clear  impression  of  an  officer  whose 
function  corresponded  at  once  to  that  of  captain-general  and  that  of 
supreme  judge.  It  is  very  probable  that  the  snake-woman,  whatever 
else  his  functions,  was  particularly  in  charge  of  the  gathering  and 
housing  of  tribute.115  During  the  siege  of  the  city  by  the  Spaniards, 
Montezuma  commanded  the  confederate  tribes  who  were  fighting  the 
Spaniards,  while  the  snake-woman  led  the  local  Mexican  forces.116 

111  Duran,  p.  214. 

112  Clavigero,  Book  7,  ch.  22;  Codex  Telleriano-Remensis ;  Duran,  p.  215; 
Tezozomoc,  pp.  57,  115,  129. 

ns  Duran,  pp.  250,  251;  Tezozomoc,  p.  65. 

114  Acosta,  p.  496  ;  Codex  Ramirez,  p.  381;  Duran,  p.  381. 

ns  Duran,  pp.  172,  173;  Tezozomoc,  pp.  45,  64,  65,  104,  110,  111,  119. 

n°  Cortes,  p.  89. 


1917] 


Waterman  :  Mexican  Social  Organization 


269 


The  last  snake-woman  to  hold  the  office  was  appointed  governor  of 
the  City  of  Mexico  under  the  Spaniards  by  Cortes.117  It  would  be 
logically  the  most  satisfying  course  to  assume  that  there  was  a  division 
of  function  between  the  two  highest  officers,  as  there  was  possibly  in 
the  case  of  the  clan  officers.  For  example,  it  would  be  a  scheme  easy 
to  understand  if  the  head  war-chief  had  exercised  primarily  military 
leadership,  while  the  snake-woman  was  essentially  a  civil  officer,  with 
the  administration  of  tribute  gathering  and  other  public  matters  in 
his  hands.  The  evidence,  however,  does  not  so  indicate.  At  any  rate, 
the  existence  of  an  officer  who  shared  the  prerogatives  and  the  author¬ 
ity  of  the  head  war-chief  adds  tremendously  to  the  probability  that 
the  latter  official  was  not  a  “royal”  person. 

A  question  of  some  theoretical  interest  is  this :  Did  the  bilateral 
segmentation  of  Aztec  officialdom  into  civil  and  military  functionaries 
extend  to  the  high  officers  of  the  tribe  ?  The  answer  is  that  it  did  not. 
There  is  no  reference  to  any  civil  officer  corresponding  to  the  head 
war-chief.  The  reason,  when  we  reflect  a  moment,  is  not  far  to  seek. 
The  tribe,  namely,  had  no  civil  business.  It  owned  no  land,  collected 
no  internal  taxes,  made  no  expenditures,  never  interfered  in  the  affairs 
of  the  clans.  In  other  words,  the  only  business  in  which  the  tribe 
engaged  as  a  unit  was  war.  There  was  no  need  for  any  tribal  officer 
except  the  war  leader.  The  snake-woman  is  certainly  not  a  civil 
officer,  but  a  military  one,  and  is  to  be  recognized  as  the  understudy 
of  the  war-chief.  Everything  in  and  about  his  office,  even  his  personal 
ornaments,  points  to  his  partnership  in  the  war-cliief’s  duties.  In 
other  Avords,  a  point  to  be  always  emphasized  is  the  purely  military 
purpose  and  intent  of  all  the  Mexican  efforts  towards  the  organization 
of  a  government. 

The  ‘  ‘  Four  Quarters,  ’  ’  or  Phratries 

The  fact  that  the  ancient  City  of  Mexico  was  divided  into  four 
districts  is  well  known,  and  it  is  accepted,  I  believe,  quite  generally.118 
These  “major  quarters”  were  divided  into  a  number  of  independent 
clans,  probably  twenty  in  all  (see  above,  p.  255).  The  fact  that  the 
“major  quarter”  is  a  group  of  clans  is  indicated  quite  clearly.119  The 
question  as  to  what  function  the  “major  quarter”  had,  as  a  unit  of 

117  Bernal  Diaz,  pp.  198,  199;  Cortes,  p.  110;  Herrera,  pp.  122,  123;  Ixtlil- 
xoehitl  (6),  pp.  265,  266,  269. 

718  Acosta,  p.  467;  Clavigero,  p.  494;  Duran,  p.  42;  Gomara,  p.  434;  Herrera, 
p.  61;  Vetaneurt,  p.  124. 

119  See  especially  Duran,  Torqueinada,  Vetaneurt,  as  cited  above. 


270 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Etlin.  [YoJ.  12 


the  social  order,  still  remains.  We  know  that  it  was  very  important 
in  military  affairs.120  Moreover,  it  had  certain  religious  functions. 
Each  such  “quarter,”  for  example,  had  its  own  god  and  place 
for  worship.121  A  group  of  clans  for  ceremonial  and  military  purposes 
deserves,  it  seems  to  me,  to  he  called  a  “phratry.  ”  Moreover,  the 
word  calpulli,  which  implies  kinship,  is  applied  also  to  these  four 
quarters,122  indicating  that  these  were  based  on  notions  of  common 
descent.  That  these  “four  quarters,”  or  “major  quarters,”  of 
the  Spanish  historians  were  very  important  institutions  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  they  persisted  in  the  City  of  Mexico  for  a  very  long 
time  after  the  Conquest.  They  were  perpetuated  in  the  four  city 
wards  of  San  Pablo,  San  Juan,  Santa  Maria  la  Redonda,  and  San 
Sebastian,  which  were  simply  the  old  quarters,  known  to  the  Indians 
as  Teopan,  Aztacalco,  Moyotlan,  and  Cuepopan.123  It  was  at  one  time 
intended  to  concentrate  the  Indian  population  in  the  old  pueblo  of 
Tlaltelolco,  which  was  known  as  the  “ward”  of  Santiago.  The  most 
interesting  thing  about  these  “major  quarters’  is  the  fact  of  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  a  great  war  leader  for  each  one,  an  official  who  is  most 
commonly  referred  to  as  the  “captain-general”  (though  the  use  of 
this  term  is  not  restricted  to  the  one  official  in  question).  It  remains 
to  discuss  the  functions  and  rank  of  these  officers. 

The  “ Captains-General,”  or  Phratry-C ommanders 

Consult:  Art  of  War,  p.  121;  Mode  of  Government,  pp.  688-690. 

The  existence  of  these  four  conspicuous  officials  is  referred  to, 
though  their  titles  are  given  somewhat  differently  by  a  number  of 
authors.124  There  is  little  question  about  their  identity.  Bandelier 
states,  on  fairly  good  authority,  that  they  were  elected,125  and,  he 
thinks,  by  the  population  of  each  of  the  “four  quarters.”  Each  one 
had  a  special  title  or  official  name.  In  other  words,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  Iroquois,  a  certain  name  went  with  the  occupancy  of  the  office. 
These  four  names,  given  differently  by  different  authors,  help  to  iden- 

120  Clavigero,  p.  494;  Tezozomoc,  p.  161;  Torquemada,  loc.  cit.;  also  see  below, 
under  “Captain-General.” 

121  Duran,  p.  42. 

122  For  example,  Tezozomoc,  p.  184. 

123  Duran,  p.  42;  Tezozomoc,  p.  98;  Vetancurt,  p.  42. 

Acosta,  p.  441;  Clavigero,  Book  7,  eh.  21;  Codex  Ramirez,  pp.  57,  58; 
Duran,  pp.  102,  103;  Herrera,  p.  75;  Sahagun,  pp.  318,  319;  Tezozomoc,  pp.  24, 
161. 

125  Acosta,  Codex  Ramirez,  Duran,  Herrera,  Sahagun,  as  cited  just  above, 
note  124. 


1917] 


Waterman :  Mexican  Social  Organization 


271 


tify  the  officials,  when  mentioned  in  different  places  in  our  sources. 
They  are,  as  given  by  Bandelier,  Tlacateccatl,  or  ‘  ‘  cutter  of  men  ’  ’ ; 
Tlacochcaccttl,  or  “man  of  the  storehouse  of  weapons”;  Ezhuahuacatl, 
or  “he  who  sheds  blood”;  and  perhaps  Quauhnochtli,  or  “eagle  and 
cactus  chief.”  Three  passages  prove  to  Bandelier ’s  satisfaction  that 
the  four  were  immediate  assistants  to  the  head  war-chief.120  If  this 
is  true,  their  main  function  was  undoubtedly  warlike.  A  variety  of 
titles  are  applied  to  them,  however.  Among  other  things,  they  are 
referred  to  as  1  ‘  judges.  ’ ’127  ‘  ‘  Alcalde  ’  ’  is  another  Spanish  term  which 
to  many  Spanish  authors  seemed  applicable  to  the  official  in  question.128 
Taking  everything  into  consideration,  we  are  evidently  dealing  with  a 
somewhat  undifferentiated  office,  in  which  military  leadership  was  the 
most  important  factor. 

As  regards  their  dress,  these  four  men  were  allowed  to  tie  the  hair 
with  red  leather,  a  thing  which  was  otherwise  permitted  only  to  the 
head  war-chief  and  the  snake-woman.  Another  point  of  extreme 
importance  is  this,  that  (according  to  fairly  good  authority)  the  head 
war-chief  was  invariably  elected  from  among  these  four.120  We  have 
already  considered  the  idea  that  the  chief  of  men  had  to  be  elected 
from  one  lineage.  If  this  second  principle  was  also  in  operation,  the 
four  phratry-captains  must  obviously  have  belonged,  in  each  case,  to 
the  same  lineage.  Otherwise  they  would  not  have  been  eligible  for 
election  to  the  office.  Of  the  authors  just  mentioned  (note  139),  Duran 
is  very  explicit. 

Mention  ought  to  be  made  of  the  fact  that  some  of  the  sources 
speak  not  of  four  officers,  whom  we  may  assume  to  be  captains-general, 
but  of  two.1'30  It  seems  plausible,  however,  that  four  was  the  actual 
number,  corresponding  to  the  four  quarters. 

Other  Institutions  in  the  Phratry 

The  tribe  seems  to  have  had  a  public  house,  where  the  head  war- 
chief  and  other  important  men  lived,  and  where  a  great  deal  of  official 
business  went  forward.  This  was  called  the  tribal  tecpctn  (consult 
Mode  of  Government,  pp.  648,  655).  Bandelier  makes  much  of  the 
point  that  the  so-called  “palace”  of  Montezuma  was  merely  the  official 

126  Codex  Ramirez,  pp.  57,  58;  Duran,  p.  103;  Sahagun,  p.  318. 

127  Clavigero,  p.  481;  Torquemada,  p.  352;  Vetancurt,  p.  370. 

128  Codex  Mendoza,  pi.  59. 

129  Acosta,  pp.  431,  441;  Codex  Mendoza,  pi.  11;  Codex  Ramirez,  p.  58;  Duran, 
p.  103;  Tezozomoc,  ch.  15  (confirms  vaguely);  Torquemada,  pp.  172,  186. 

130  Gomara,  p.  442;  Sahagun,  p.  311;  Zurita,  p.  95. 


272 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Ethn.  [Vol.  12 


tribal  administration  building.  Similar  buildings  may  have  existed 
in  each  major  quarter. 

Two  other  institutions  connected  with  the  quarter  might  hold  our 
attention  for  a  moment.  One  was  a  place  called  by  Bandelier  the 
“sehoolhouse,”  where  youths  were  trained,  “under  the  supervision  of 
the  clan  leaders,”  for  war.  The  other  was  an  armory,  a  “house  of 
darts,”  which  seems  to  have  been  immediately  under  the  supervision 
of  the  phratry-captain.  Statements  concerning  the  “sehoolhouses” 
may  be  found  in  various  authors.131  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  elan 
official  did  the  teaching,  but  the  sehoolhouse  was  an  establishment 
belonging  to  the  “major  quarter,”  or  phratry.  The  existence  of  four 
houses  of  darts,  one  for  each  major  quarter,  or  phratry,  is  mentioned 
by  one  author.132  Others  are  not  so  explicit.133  They  seem  to  have 
existed,  however,  and  to  have  been  found  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
temples,134  probably  because  the  temples  and  other  public  buildings 
were  grouped  together.  The  “darts”  spoken  of  were  undoubtedly 
the  javelins  hurled  by  means  of  the  characteristic  Mexican  weapon, 
the  atlatl.  or  spear-thrower.135  Torquemada  speaks  of  a  special  house, 
at  the  Main  Temple,  reserved  for  javelins,  and  nothing  else.136  Alto¬ 
gether  it  can  be  seen  that  phratries  had  a  rather  definite  and  active 
function  in  the  Mexican  social  order. 


Points  op  Difficulty 

A  great  many  points  are  brought  up  by  Bandelier  concerning 
which  we  have  no  satisfactory  information.  We  know,  for  example, 
that  Mexico  and  two  allied  pueblos,  Tezcoco  and  Tlacopan,  exacted  a 
relatively  heavy  tribute  from  many  surrounding  places.  The  collec¬ 
tion  and  forwarding  of  this  tribute  imply  the  existence  of  an  ex¬ 
tensive  business  organization.  There  are  many  references  to  the 
calpixca,  or  “stewards,”  who  were  engaged  in  this  work,  but  there  is 
very  little  to  show  us  the  precise  nature  of  their  appointment  and 

Gomara,  p.  438;  Mendieta,  p.  124;  Sahagun,  p.  268;  Tezozomoc,  pp.  121, 
134;  Torquemada,  p.  185. 

132  Tezozomoc,  p.  184. 

133  Bernal  Diaz,  vol.  2,  p.  87,  says  “two”;  Gomara,  p.  345,  and  Herrera,  p. 
197,  say  “several”;  Motolinia,  p.  188,  says  “many.” 

i3i  Acosta,  Book  6,  oh.  28;  Anonymous  Conqueror,  p.  394;  Gomara,  vol.  2, 
p.  349;  Tezozomoc,  p.  121;  Torquemada,  p.  146. 

135  Mrs.  Zelia  Nuttall,  in  Peabody  Museum  (Harvard  University),  Anthropo¬ 
logical  Papers,  vol.  1. 

136  Torquemada,  p.  146. 


1917] 


Waterman :  Mexican  Social  Organization 


273 


procedure.  Bandelier  devotes  considerable  space  to  these  calpixca, 
but  after  all  achieves  nothing  very  definite.  (See  Mode  of  Government, 
especially  pp.  638,  697.)  We  know  that  the  tribute  was  collected,  that 
it  was  forwarded  to  the  confederate  towns,  and  that  it  was  divided  up 
among  the  allies,  Mexico  and  Tezcoco  taking  each  two-fifths,  and 
Tlacopan  receiving  one-fifth.  We  have  a  suspicion  that  this  tribute 
was  finally  parcelled  out  to  the  clans  and  not  to  individuals.  The 
exact  facts  in  connection  with  the  gathering  of  tribute  are  a  most 
promising  field  for  investigation.  Another  extremely  interesting  ques¬ 
tion,  which  is  closely  allied  to  the  one  just  mentioned,  is  the  question 
of  trade  routes  and  avenues  of  commerce.  There  is  reason  to  believe 
that  there  was  a  lively  commerce  in  highly  specialized  products  be¬ 
tween  various  localities  on  the  Plateau.  The  actual  tracing  of  the 
important  trails  and  other  arteries  of  commerce  ought  to  be  practi¬ 
cable,  and  it  is  certainly  most  necessary. 

We  ought  to  have  a  list  of  the  names  applied  to  the  clans,  or 
calpullis.  The  whole  matter  of  totemism  ought  also  to  be  thoroughly 
explored.  Analogy  with  the  Iroquois,  together  with  the  attire  worn 
by  Mexican  warriors,  would  suggest  that  these  clans  might  quite  pos¬ 
sibly  have  exhibited  certain  totemistic  phenomena.  Nothing  has  ever 
been  done  with  the  question  whether  or  not  the  Mexican  clans  were 
exogamous.  All  these  points  could  probably  be  worked  out  on  the 
basis  of  the  source  material. 

A  totally  different  point  which  ought  to  be  investigated  is  the 
question  of  the  nature  and  workings  of  the  Confederacy,  to  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  which  allusion  has  just  been  made.  Mexico  seems  to  have 
enjoyed  the  right  of  furnishing  a  leader  for  each  confederate  enter¬ 
prise,  this  leader  being  normally  her  own  head  war-chief.  This  fact 
tends  to  make  an  additional  distinction  between  this  official  of  the 
Mexicans  and  the  ordinary  war-chief  of  ordinary  Indian  tribes.  The 
Confederacy  was  really  superimposed  on  the  already  existing  local 
organization  of  each  tribe,  and  its  workings  ought  to  prove  most 
interesting. 


Conclusion 

The  following  tabulation  indicates  the  composition  of  Mexican 
society  as  viewed  by  Bandelier.  Under  the  headings  are  listed  the 
institutions  and  functions  characterizing  (in  his  opinion)  each  division 
of  the  social  order. 


274 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Etlm.  [Vol.  12 


Clan  Phratry  Tribe 

War-party  War-party  War-party 

War-leader  (Elder  Brother)  War-leader  (Phratry  captain)  War-leader  (“King”) 
Religous  observances  Religious  observances  Religious  observances 

Official  buildings  Official  buildings  Official  buildings 

Council  — .  Council 

Temple  . 

Steward  .  . 

Calpullec  .  . 

Speaker  .  . 

Lands  .  . — 


Iii  summing  up  Bandelier’s  findings,  several  points  are  to  be  borne 
in  mind.  It  is  perfectly  obvious,  in  the  first  place,  that  arguments 
cannot  be  based  on  the  descriptive  terminology  used  by  the  Spanish 
authors  of  the  sixteenth  century,  not  even  when  these  authors  were 
eye-witnesses  of  what  they  describe.  When  Spanish  authors  define 
the  same  Indian  official  as  being  at  once  a  bailiff  and  a  general,  or  a 
captain  of  the  guard  and  an  abbot,  we  are  obviously  helpless  to  make 
up  our  minds  what  the  official  really  was.  There  are  several  possible 
explanations  for  the  uncertainties  in  the  Spanish  accounts,  all  of  which 
probably  apply  in  some  measure.  The  offices  the  Spaniards  were 
describing  were  not  exactly  analogous  to  anything  in  the  Old  World. 
Probably,  also,  these  Indian  offices  were  somewhat  undifferentiated. 
An  “official”  who  is  mentioned  as  holding  office  was  probably  in  the 
main  merely  an  important  man.  One  day  he  might  be  leading  a  party 
to  war,  and  the  next  day  taking  an  important  role  in  a  religious  cere¬ 
mony,  or  exerting  influence  in  a  way  which  made  him  look  to  the 
Spaniards  like  a  judge.  Of  the  various  reasons  for  confusion  and 
uncertainty,  this  lack  of  specialization  in  functions  seems  to  be  prob¬ 
ably  the  most  important. 

What  applies  to  the  less  important  officials,  applies  with  greater 
force  to  the  most  important  dignitary  of  all,  the  head  war-chief. 
Whether  he  is  to  be  called  a  king  or  not  depends  on  the  meaning  which 
this  term  carries.  The  office  was,  however,  elective,  and  for  that  and 
other  reasons,  “king”  is  probably  not  the  term  to  use.  The  conclusion 
to  which  the  evidence  obviously  points  is  that  the  Aztec  war-chief  was 
probably  well  started  on  the  road  to  becoming  a  king,  but  had  not  yet 
arrived.  A  most  significant  point  is  that  the  leadership  was  shared. 
This  is  true  also  of  the  government  of  tribes  in  the  United  States, 
where  there  was  often  a  board  of  four  or  more  “chiefs”  who  directed 
affairs.  It  would  be  possible  fully  to  understand  the  government  of 


1917] 


Waterman  :  Mexican  Social  Organization 


275 


ancient  Mexico  only  by  making  a  comparative  study  of  government 
among  tribes  in  the  eastern  United  States  (especially  the  Iroquois), 
on  the  Plains  and,  above  all,  among  the  Pueblos  of  the  Southwest, 
where  we  are  almost  certain  to  find  conditions  that  may  be  compared 
with  those  in  Tenochtitlan. 

In  a  more  general  way  still,  there  were  fundamental  differences 
between  Indian  and  Spanish  society  which  the  Spaniards  never  seem 
to  have  understood.  The  ownership  of  land,  to  mention  the  most  im¬ 
portant  kind  of  property,  was  vested  not  in  individuals  but  in  the 
clan.  This  fact  the  Spaniards  were  slow  to  grasp.  The  Spaniards 
also  viewed  the  whole  of  Mexican  tribal  society  as  a  unit  subdivided 
into  four  quarters,  and  each  quarter  further  subdivided,  for  adminis¬ 
trative  purposes,  into  clans,  or  calpullis.  The  facts  probably  are  that 
the  Indians  regarded  the  clans  as  the  essential  thing,  while  the 
four  quarters,  or  phratries,  and  in  still  larger  measure  the  tribe,  were 
merely  loose  aggregates  of  clans  held  together  primarily  for  the  pur¬ 
poses  of  war,  and,  after  that,  of  ritual.  The  fundamental  point 
which  Bandelier  makes,  that  Spanish  society  was  essentially  feudal, 
while  Indian  society  was  essentially  democratic,  is,  it  seems  to  me,  a 
good  one. 

The  question,  therefore,  whether  Mexican  society  was  monarchical 
or  democratic  seems  to  me  to  be  largely  an  artificial  one.  Mexico,  for 
example,  is  regularly  described  in  works  concerning  the  Aztecs  as  a 
monarchy;  Tlascala  as  a  republic.  Kepublic  ( res  publica )  is  a  word 
which  could  not,  as  used  by  the  early  writers,  have  had  its  modern 
sense ;  moreover,  it  was  actually  applied  to  both  cities  alike.137  There 
is  not  the  slightest  critical  reason  for  drawing  any  distinction  between 
the  mode  of  government  of  the  two.  The  distinction  is  an  accidental 
one.  Mexico  was  certainly  as  much  of  a  republic  as  Tlascala  was. 
A  great  deal  of  the  talk  about  Mexico  being  a  monarchy,  especially 
the  highly  colored  talk,  could  probably  be  traced  back  to  Ixtlilxochitl. 
He  seems  to  have  been  moved  by  a  desire  to  glorify  his  maternal  an¬ 
cestors,  who  were  war-chiefs  of  Tezcoeo,  and  to  establish  royal  rank 
for  the  family.  He  uses  a  feudal  terminology,  even  in  speaking  of  the 
most  ancient  periods,  when  the  peoples  he  describes  were,  according 
to  his  own  words,  naked  hunters.138 

Many  problems  are  suggested  by  Bandelier  for  which  the  necessary 
data  are  so  far  lacking.  The  actual  details  of  Mexican  organization 


137  Torquemada,  p.  361. 

138  Ixtlilxochitl  (a),  pp.  30,  66. 


276 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Etlin.  [Vol.  12 


might  still  be  recovered,  in  large  measure,  through  a  study  of  the 
manuscript  material,  more  and  more  of  which  is  becoming  available. 
This  involves,  however,  an  exhaustive  knowledge  of  its  contents. 
Bandelier’s  work,  it  seems  to  me,  is  a  good  beginning,  and  offers  the 
proper  foundation  for  a  final  study  of  Mexican  society. 

Bandelier’s  positive  contributions  to  the  subject  may  be  summed 
This  involves,  however,  an  exhaustive  knowledge  of  their  contents, 
up  as  follows.  He  cites  evidence  which  proves  conclusively  that  the 
social  organization  of  Tenochtitlan  was  based  on  clans,  that  these  clans 
were  grouped  in  four  phratries,  and  that  the  actions  of  the  tribe  as 
a  whole  were  governed  primarily  by  a  council.  The  “kings”  he  shows 
clearly  to  be  the  executive  agents,  in  a  very  real  sense,  of  this  council, 
and  responsible  through  them  to  the  people.  He  brings  forward  a 
good  deal  of  evidence  in  support  of  his  dictum  that  Mexican  society 
was  fundamentally  democratic. 

The  remainder  of  the  points  made  in  his  paper  are  unsatisfactory 
in  the  present  state  of  the  evidence.  The  question  of  the  importance 
of  “honorary  chiefs”  and  the  question  of  the  existence  of  separate 
clan  councils  as  governmental  institutions  are  still  entirely  open.  The 
function  of  the  “elder  brother,”  or  war  leader  in  the  clan,  and  his 
relation  to  other  elan  officials,  must  remain  quite  problematical.  Ban¬ 
dolier  cannot  be  said  to  have  achieved  anything  conclusive  in  regard 
to  the  whole  matter  of  clan  officials.  The  relation  of  Bandelier ’s  work 
to  Morgan’s  is  very  close.  Morgan  arrived  at  certain  conclusions, 
without  having  a  very  wide  knowledge  of  the  evidence  in  the  sources. 
He  quotes  only  nine  sixteenth-century  authors.  Bandelier  backs  up 
Morgan’s  conclusions  by  a  rather  wide  study  of  the  sources,  as  the 
following  bibliography  will  show.  He  may  be  regarded  as  finally 
confirming  the  most  important  of  Morgan’s  conclusions. 

Alphabetical  List  of  the  Sources  Cited  by  Bandelier 
Showing  the  dates  of  composition 

It  is  difficult  to  say  definitely  when  each  of  these  works  was  com¬ 
posed.  The  dates  which  are  given  in  the  appended  list  often  indicate 
merely  the  approximate  period.  It  must  be  remembered  that  this 
list  includes  only  the  original  works  cited  by  Bandelier,  and  not  the 
modern  works  to  which  he  makes  reference.  It  is  not  in  any  sense  a 
bibliography  of  the  subject. 


1917] 


Waterman:  Mexican  Social  Organisation 


Acazitli,  Francisco  de  Sandoval 

Belaeion  de  la  jornada  .  .  .  del  pueblo  de  Tlalmanalco,  etc.  (Written  in 
1641.) 

Mexico  (in  Icazbalceta,  Coleccion  de  documentos  para  la  liistoria 
de  Mexico,  2  vols.,  1858—1866,  vol.  2),  1866. 

Acosta,  JosId  de  SalamAn 

Historia  natural  y  moral  de  las  Indias.  (Composed  about  1588.) 

Seville,  1608. 

Alvarado,  Pedro  de 

Belaeion  a  Hernando  Cortes.  (Written  in  1524.) 

Madrid,  edited  by  Yedia  (in  Historiadores  primitives  de  Indias, 
2  vols.,  included  as  vols.  22  and  26  of  the  Biblioteca  de  autores  Espa- 
fioles,  71  vols.,  various  editors,  1849-1880,  vol.  22),  1868. 

Anonymous  Conqueror 

Belaeion  de  algunas  cosas  de  Nueva  Espana  y  de  la  Gran  Ciudad  de  Temestitan 
de  Mexico.  (Composed  “soon  after  the  Conquest.”) 

Mexico  (in  Icazbalceta,  Coleccion  de  Documentos  para  la  Historia 
de  Mexico,  2  vols.),  1858-1860. 

Anunciaci6n,  Domingo  de  la 

Lettre.  (Written  in  Chaleo,  September  20,  1554.) 

Paris  (in  Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  20  vols.,  1837-1841,  vol.  16 
[i.e.,  Series  2,  vol.  6]),  1840. 

Biblioteca  Mexicana 

The  work  cited  by  Bandelier  under  this  very  misleading  title  is  an  edition  of 
the  Cronica  Mexicana  of  Fernando  de  Alvarado  Tezozomoc.  This  edition 
was  annotated  by  Orozco  y  Berra  and  contains  also  the  Codex  Ramirez 
and  two  “  fragmentos,  ”  very  frequently  referred  to  by  our  author.  The 
volume,  including  the  Cronica  Mexicana  and  its  companion  pieces,  seems 
to  constitute  number  69  in  a  series  the  general  title  of  which  is  as  given, 
Biblioteca  Mexicana.  This  title  does  not,  however,  appear  in  the  usual 
works  of  reference. 

Bologna,  Francisco  de 

Lettre  au  Reverend  Padre  Clement  de  Monelia.  (Written  before  1534.) 

Paris  (in  Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  20  vols.,  1837-1841,  vol.  10), 
1840. 

Camargo,  Domingo  Munoz 

Histoire  de  la  republique  de  Taxcallan.  (Written  1576-1585.) 

Paris,  edited  by  Ternaux-Compans  (in  Nouvelles  Annales  des  Voy¬ 
ages,  160  vols.,  various  editors,  1819,  vols.  98  and  99),  1843. 

Chavez,  Gabriel  de 

Rapport  sur  la  Province  de  Meztitlan.  (Written  October  1,  1569.) 

Paris  (in  Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  20  vols.,  1837-1841,  vol.  16 
[i.e.,  Series  2,  vol.  6]),  1840. 

Clj^vigero,  Francisco  Severio 

Storia  antica  de  Messico.  (Composed  about  1765.) 

Cesena,  1780. 

Codex  Mendoza. 

London  (in  Kingsborough,  Mexican  Antiquities,  9  vols.),  1831. 
(Note. — The  original  painting  is  in  vol.  1,  pp.  1-73,  the  original 
Spanish  commentary  in  vol.  5,  pp.  39-113,  and  an  English  translation 
of  the  Spanish  commentary  in  vol.  6,  pp.  3-87.) 


278 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  ancl  Ethn.  [Vol.  12 


Codex  Manures  (so-called).  In  Tezozomoc,  Croniea  Mexicana  .  .  .  anotada  por 
.  .  .  M.  Orozco  y  Berra,  y  preeidida  del  Codice  Ramirez,  manuscrito  in- 
titulado:  Relacion  del  origen  de  los  Indios  que  habitan  esta  Nueva  Espana 
segun  sus  historias,  y  de  un  examen  de  ambas  obras,  al  cual  va  anexo  un 
estudio  de  cronologia  Mexicana  por  el  mismo  .  .  .  Orozco  y  Berra. 

Mexico  (in  Biblioteca  Mexicana.  Coleccion  de  obras  y  documentos 
relativos  a  la  liistoria  .  .  .  de  Mexico,  No.  69),  1878. 

Codex  T elleriano-Bemensis. 

London  (in  Kingsbo rough,  Mexican  Antiquities,  9  vols.),  1831. 
(Note. — The  original  picture-writing  is  reproduced  in  vol.  1,  pp.  73- 
166,  the  Spanish  commentary  in  vol.  5,  pp.  129-158,  and  an  English 
translation  of  the  Spanish  commentary  in  vol.  6,  pp.  95-153.) 

Concilios  Provinciates,  Primero  y  Segundo,  celebrados  por  la  muy  noble  y  muy  leal 
ciudad  de  Mexico,  etc.,  etc. 

Mexico,  1769. 

Conquista  de  Mejico.  See  Gornara. 

Cortes,  Hernando 

Cartas.  (Written  at  different  times  from  1519  to  1526.) 

Madrid,  edited  by  Yedia  (in  Historiadores  primitives  de  Indias, 
2  vols.,  issued  as  vols.  22  and  26  of  the  Biblioteca  de  autores  Espa- 
noles,  71  vols.,  1849-1880),  1877. 

Cuarta  relacion  anonima  de  la  jornada  que  hizo  Nuno  de  Guzman  a  la  Nueva  Galicia. 
(Written  about  1530.) 

Mexico  (in  Icazbalceta,  Coleccion  de  documentos  para  la  historia 
de  Mexico,  2  vols.,  1858-1866,  vol.  2,  pp.  260-485),  1866. 

Des  ceremonies  observes  autrefois  par  les  Indiens  lorsqui-ils  faissaient  un  tecle 
(anonymous). 

Paris  (in  Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  20  vols.,  1837-1841,  vol.  10, 
pp.  233-241),  1840. 

De  I’ordre  de  succession  observe  par  les  Iudieris  relativement  d  leurs  terres  et  de 
lews  territoires  communaux  (anonymous). 

Paris  (in  Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  20  vols.,  1837-1841,  vol.  10), 
1840. 

Diaz  del  Castillo,  Bernal 

Verdadera  historia  de  los  sucesos  de  la  conquista  de  la  Nueva  Espana.  (Com¬ 
posed  in  1552,  some  authorities  say  1568.) 

Madrid,  edited  by  Vedia  (in  Historiadores  primitivos  de  Indias, 
2  vols.,  issued  as  vols.  21  and  26  of  the  Biblioteca  de  autores  Espa- 
noles,  71  vols.,  various  editors,  1849-1880,  vol.  26),  1862. 

London,  edited  by  Maudslay  (in  Works  issued  by  the  Hakluyt 
Society,  Series  2,  vols.  23,  24,  25),  1908. 

DurLn,  Diego 

Historia  de  las  Indias  de  Nueva  Espana.  (Composed  in  1579-1581.) 

Mexico  (edited  by  Ramirez),  1867.  (First  volume  only.  The  re¬ 
mainder  was  confiscated  by  the  newly  installed  Republican  govern¬ 
ment  on  the  fall  of  Maximilian.  The  text  of  this  edition  is  said  to 
have  been  tampered  with.) 

Eslava,  Fernan  Gonzales  de 

Coloquios  espirituales  y  sacramentales,  y  poesias  sagradas.  (Written  before 
1610.) 

Mexico  (edited  by  Icazbalceta),  1877.  (Only  200  copies  printed.) 

Fragmento  1.  See  Noticias  relativas  al  reinado  de  Motecuzuma  Ilhuicamina. 


1917] 


Waterman  :  Mexican  Social  Organization 


279 


Fragmento  2.  See  Noticias  relativas  a  la  conquista  desde  la  llegada  de  Cortes  a 
Tetzcuca,  etc. 

Fuenleal,  Sebastian  Eami'rez  de 

Carta  (addressed  November  3,  1552,  to  the  Emperor  Charles  Y). 

Paris  (in  Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  20  vols.,  1837-1841,  vol.  10), 
1840. 

GarcIa,  Gregorio 

Origen  de  los  Indios  del  Nuevo  Mundo  y  Indias  Occidentales.  (Date  of 
composition  not  ascertained.) 

Madrid,  edited  by  Barcia  (in  Historiadores  primitivos  de  las  Indias 
occidentales,  3  vols.,  1727-1740),  1729. 

G6mara,  Francisco  Lopez  de 

Historia  general  de  las  Indias.  (Note. — The  second  part  of  this  work  goes 
under  the  title  “Conquista  de  Mejico,  ”  and  is  so  cited  by  Bandolier.) 
(Composed  about  1550.) 

Madrid,  edited  by  Vedia  (in  Historiadores  primitivos  de  Indias,  2 
vols.,  issued  as  vols.  22  and  26  of  the  Biblioteca  de  autores  Espaholes, 
71  vols.,  various  editors,  1849-1880),  1877. 

Herrera,  Antonio  de 

Historia  general  de  los  hechos  de  los  Castellanos  en  las  islas  y  tierra  firme 
del  mar  oceano.  (Composed  between  1596  and  1600.) 

Madrid,  edited  by  Barcia  (in  Historiadores  primitivos  de  las  Indias 
occidentales,  3  vols.,  1727-1740),  1749. 

IXTLILXOCH1TL,  HERNANDO  DE  ALVA 

(a)  Historia  Chichimeca.  (Composed  1608-1616.) 

Paris  (in  Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  20  vols.,  1837—1841,  vols.  12 
and  13  [i.e.,  Series  2,  vols.  2  and  3]),  1840. 

(b)  Relaciones  historicas.  (Composed  1608-1616.) 

Paris  (in  Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  20  vols.,  1837-1841,  vol.  8), 
1838.  (Note. — Only  the  thirteenth  Relaeion  is  printed  here,  under  the 
name  Cruautes  horribles  des  conquerants  de  Mexico.  This  curious 
name  was  invented  by  Bustainente,  in  his  edition  of  Sahagun  [Mexico, 
1829],  The  Ternaux-Compans  reprint  is  the  one  cited  by  Bandelier.) 

Las  Casas,  Bartolom£  de 

(a)  Brevissima  relaeion  de  la  destruyeion  de  las  Indias.  (Composed  1541- 
1542.) 

Venetia,  1643. 

(b)  Historia  de  las  Indias.  (Composed  1527-1562.) 

Madrid  (in  Coleccion  de  documentos  ineditos  para  la  historia  de 
Espafia,  112  vols.,  various  editors,  published  by  the  Royal  Academy  of 
History,  1842-1895,  vols.  62-66),  1875-1876.  (Note. — The  so-called 
Historia  Apologetica  of  Las  Casas  is  printed  in  vol.  66,  beginning  with 
p.  237  of  this  set.  Chapter  211  of  the  Historia  is  also  printed  in  full 
in  vol.  8  of  Kingsborougli ’s  Mexican  Antiquities  [9  vols.,  London, 
1831,  vol.  8  (first  part),  pp.  248-254],  This  latter  excerpt  is  referred 
to  by  Bandelier.) 

Lettre  des  auditeurs  Salmeron,  Maldonado,  Ceynos  et  Queroga  d  I’Imperatrice  de 
Mexico.  (Written  in  Mexico,  March  30,  1531.) 

Paris  (in  Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  20  vols.,  1837-1841,  vol.  16 
[i.e.,  Series  2,  vol.  6]),  1840. 


280 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Ethn.  [VoL  12 


Lettre  des  chapelains  Frere  Toribio  et  Frere  Diego  d’Olarte  a  Don  Luis  de  Velasco. 
(Written  August  27,  1554.) 

Paris  (in  Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  vol.  10),  1840. 

Martyr,  Peter  (Pietro  Martire  d’Anghiera) 

De  novo  orbe.  (Written  1505-1530.) 

London  (translated  by  Eden  and  Lok),  1612. 

Mendieta,  Ger6nimo  de 

Historia  ecclesiastica  Indiana.  (Composed  1573-1596.) 

Mexico  (in  leazbalceta,  Coleccion  de  documentos  para  la  historia 
de  Mexico,  2  vols.),  1858-1860. 

Mendoza,  Antonio  de 

Avis  du  Viee-Roi  .  .  .  sur  les  prestations  personelles  et  les  tamemes.  (Written 
in  1550.) 

Paris  (in  Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  20  vols.,  1837-1841,  vol.  10), 
1838. 

Merced  a  Hernan  Cortes  de  tierras  inmediatas  a  Mexico,  y  solares  en  la  ciudad 
(Written  July  23,  1529.) 

Mexico  (in  Teazbalceta,  Coleccion  de  documentos  para  la  historia 
de  Mexico,  2  vols.),  1858-1860. 

Molina,  Alonzo  de 

Vocabulario  en  lengua  Mexicana  y  Castellana.  (Composed  about  1550.) 
Mexico,  1571. 

Montufar,  Alonzo  de 

Supplique  a  Charles  V  en  faveur  des  Maceuales.  (Written  in  Mexico, 
November  30,  1554.) 

Paris  (Appendix  to  the  “ Cruautes  Horribles”  of  Ixtlilxochitl,  in 
Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  20  vols.,  1837-1841,  vol.  8),  1838. 
Motolinia  (Toribio  de  Benevente) 

Historia  de  los  Indios  de  Nueva  Espana.  (Composed  in  1541.) 

Mexico  (in  leazbalceta,  Coleccion  de  documentos  para  la  historia 
de  Mexico,  2  vols.),  1858-1860. 

Nieremberg,  Joan  (sic)  Eusebius 

Historia  naturae,  maxime  peregrinae,  libri  XVI  distincta.  (Probably  written 
shortly  before  1635.) 

Antverpiae,  1635. 

Noticias  relativas  a  la  conquista  desde  la  llegada  de  Cortes  a  Tetzcuco  hasta  la  toma 
del  templo  mayor  de  Mexico  (“Fragmento  2”). 

Mexico  (in  Fernando  de  Alvarado  Tezozomoe,  Cronica  Mexicana, 
annotated  by  Manuel  Orozco  y  Berra,  edited  by  Jose  M.  Vigil,  pp.  134, 
135),  1878. 

Noticias  relativas  al  reinado  de  Motecuzuma  Ilhuicamina  (‘‘Fragmento  1”). 

Mexico  (in  Fernando  de  Alvarado  Tezozomoc,  Cronica  Mexicana, 
annotated  by  Manuel  Orozco  y  Berra,  edited  by  Jose  M.  Vigil,  pp. 
124-134),  1878. 

Olarte,  Diego  d’. 

See  under  Lettre  des  Chapelains  Frere  Toribio  et  Frere  Diego  d  ’Olarte. 
Ortega,  F. 

The  work  cited  by  Bandelier  is  an  appendix  to  a  three-volume  edition  of 
Echeverria  y  Veyt.ia,  Historia  antigua  de  Mejieo,  of  which  Ortega  was  the 
editor.  It  was  published  in  Mexico  in  1836. 


1917] 


Waterman  :  Mexican  Social  Organization 


281 


Oviedo  y  Valdes,  Gonzalo  Fernandez  de 

Historia  general  y  natural  de  las  Indias.  (Composed  1525-1550.) 

Madrid,  Real  Academia  de  Historia  (four  folio  volumes),  1851. 

Padilla,  Agustin  Davila 

Historia  de  la  fundacion  y  discurso  de  la  provineia  de  Santiago  de  Mexico 
(date  of  composition  not  ascertained). 

Bruselas,  1625. 

Padilla,  MatIas  de  la  Mota 

Historia  de  la  conquista  de  la  provineia  de  la  Nueva-Galicia.  (Written  in 
1742.) 

Mexico  (published  by  the  Geographical  and  Statistical  Society), 
1870. 

Palacio,  Diego  GarcIa  de 

San  Salvador  und  Honduras  im  Jahre  1576.  (Written  about  1576.) 

Berlin  (translated  by  Frantzius),  1873. 

Pimentel  Nezahuacoyotl,  Hernando 

Memoria  dirigido  al  rey,  etc.  (Date  uncertain.  This  is  an  unpublished 
manuscript,  quoted  by  Orozco  y  Berra  on  p.  243  of  his  Geografia  de  las 
lenguas.) 

Pomar,  Juan  Bautista 

Relacion  de  Texcoco.  (Written  in  1582.) 

Mexico  (in  Icazbalceta,  Nueva  coleccion  de  documentos  para  la 
historia  de  Mexico,  5  vols.,  1886-1892),  1891.  Subsequent  to  Bandelier. 
Beal  ejecutoria  de  S.  M.  sobre  tierras  y  reservas  de  P echos  y  Paga  perteneciente  a 
los  caciques  de  Axapusco  de  la  jurisdiccion  de  Otumba.  (Issued  in  1617.) 

Mexico  (in  Icazbalceta,  Coleccion  de  documentos  para  la  historia 
de  Mexico,  2  vols.,  1858-1866,  vol.  2),  1866. 

Belacion  de  jornada  que  hizo  Don  Fernando  de  Sandoval  Acazitli,  etc.  (See 
Acazitli.) 

Belacion  de  las  ceremonias  y  ritos,  poblacion  y  gobierno  de  los  Indios  de  la  provineia 
de  Mechuacan  hecha  al  Ill’mo  Dr.  D.  Antonio  de  Mendoza,  Virey  y  Gober- 
nador  de  Nueva  Espaiia.  (Written  between  1534  and  1551.) 

Madrid  (in  Coleccion  de  documentos  ineditos  para  la  historia  de 
Espaiia,  112  vols.,  edited  by  Navarrete  and  others,  1842-1895,  vol.  53), 
1842. 

Remesal,  Antonio  de 

Historia  de  la  provineia  de  San  Vicente  de  Chyapa  y  Guatemala  del  orden 
de  Santo  Domingo.  (Written  1613-1619.) 

Madrid,  1619. 

Sahagijn,  Bernardino  de 

Historia  general  de  las  cosas  de  Nueva  Espaiia.  (Composed  1546-1569.) 

London  (in  Kingsborough,  Mexican  Antiquities,  9  vols.),  1831. 
Salmeron.  (See  also  under  Lettre  cles  auditeurs  Salmeron,  Maldonado,  etc.) 
Salmeron  (given  names  not  known). 

.  .  .  lettre  .  .  .  au  conseil  des  Indes.  (Written  in  Mexico  City,  August  13, 

1531.) 

Paris  (in  Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  20  vols.,  1837-1841,  vol.  16 
[i.e.,  Series  2,  vol.  6]),  1840. 


University  of  California  Publications  in  Am.  Arch,  and  Ethn.  [Yol.  12 


Soi,6rzano  y  Pereyra,  Juan 

Dispntatio  de  Indiarum  jure  sive  de  juxta  Indiarum  occidentalium  inquisitione, 
aequisitione  ac  retentione.  (Written  1609-1629.) 

Madrid,  1629. 

Tapia,  Andres  de 

Relacion  hecha  por  el  Seiior  Andres  de  Tapia  sobre  la  conquista  de  Mexico. 
(Date  of  composition  not  ascertained.) 

Mexico  (in  Icazbalceta,  Coleceion  de  documentos  para  la  liistoria 
de  Mexico,  2  vols.,  1858-1866,  vol.  2),  1866. 

Tezozomoc,  Fernando  de  Alvarado 

Cronica  Mexicana.  (Composed  in  1598.) 

London  (in  Kingsbo rough,  Mexican  Antiquities,  9  vols.,  vol.  9), 
1831. 

Toribio  de  Benevente.  See  Motolinia. 

Toribio  et  Diego  d’Olarte.  See  Lettre  des  Toribio,  etc. 

Torquemada,  Juan  de 

la  (-Ilia)  parte  de  los  veinte  y  un  libros  rituales  y  monarchia  Indiana  eon 
el  origen  y  guerra  de  los  Indios  occidentales,  de  sus  poblag.ones,  descubri- 
miento,  conquista,  conversion  y  otras  cosas  maravillosas  de  la  misma 
tierra.  (Composed  1589-1609.) 

Madrid,  1723. 

Vetancurt,  Augustin  de 

Teatro  Mexicano,  descripcion  breve  de  los  sucesos  exemplares,  historieos, 
jioliticos  .  .  .  del  nuevo  mundo  occidental  de  las  Indias.  (Note. — The 
Cronica  de  la  Provincia  del  Santa  Evangelico  de  Mexico,  mentioned  by 
Bandelier,  is  the  Fourth  Part  of  this  “Teatro.”)  (Composition  com¬ 
pleted  in  1697.) 

Mexico,  1870. 

Zuazo,  Alonzo  de 

Carta  al  Padre  Fray  Luis  de  Figueroa.  (Dated  Santiago  de  Cuba,  November 
14,  1521.) 

Mexico  (in  Icazbalceta,  Coleceion  de  documentos  para  la  historia 
de  Mexico,  2  vols.,  1858-1866,  vol.  1),  1858. 

Zurita,  Alonzo  de 

Breve  y  sumaria  relacion  de  los  senores  y  maneras  y  diferencias  que  habla 
de  ellas  en  la  Nueva  Espaiia  y  en  otras  provincias  sus  comarcanas,  etc. 
(Composed  about  1560.) 

Paris  (in  Ternaux-Compans,  Voyages,  20  vols.,  1837—1841,  vol.  10), 
1840.  (Note. — The  relation  appears  under  the  title  “  Eapport  sur  les 
differentes  classes  de  chefs  de  Nouvelle-Espagne  ”) 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PU BLICATIONS - (CONTINU ED) 

Vol.  7.  1.  The  Emeryville  Shellmound,  by  Max  Uhle.  Pp.  1-106,  platea  1-12,  with 

38  text  figures.  June,  1907  ..... . . . _ .  1.2B 

2.  Recent  Investigations  bearing  upon  the  Question  of  the  Occurrence  of 

Neocene  Man  in  the  Auriferous  Gravels  of  California,  by  William 
J.  Sinclair.  Pp.  107-130,  plates  13-14.  February,  1908  . .  .35 

3.  Pomo  Indian  Basketry,  by  S.  A.  Barrett.  Pp.  133-306,  plates  15-30, 

231  text  figures.  December,  1908  . .  1.76 

4.  Shellmounds  of  the  San  Francisco  Bay  Region,  by  N.  C.  Nelson. 

Pp.  309-356,  plates  32-34.  December,  1909  . 60 

5.  The  Ellis  Landing  Shellmound,  by  N.  O.  Nelson.  Pp.  357-426,  plates 

36-60.  April,  1910  . . . . . . 75 

Index,  pp.  427-443. 

Vol.  8.  1.  A  Mission  Record  of  the  California  Indians,  from  a  Manuscript  in  the 

Bancroft  Library,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp.  1-27.  May,  1908  . . . 25 

2.  The  Ethnography  of  the  Cahuilla  Indians,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp.  29- 

68,  plates  1-16.  July,  1908  . . . . . 75 

3.  The  Religion  of  the  Luisefio  and  Dieguefio  Indians  of  Southern  Cali¬ 

fornia,  by  Constance  Goddard  Dubois.  Pp.  69-186,  plates  16-19. 

June,  1908  . ; . ; . . . .  1.25 

4.  The  Culture  of  the  Luisefio  Indians,  by  Philip  Stedman  Sparkman. 

Pp.  187-234,  plate  20.  August,  1908  . . . . _ . .  .60 

6.  Notes  on  Shoshonean  Dialects  of  Southern  California,  by  A.  L.  Kroe¬ 

ber.  Pp.  235-269.  September,  1909 . . . . SB 

6.  The  Religious  Practices  of  the  Dieguefio  Indians,  by  T.  T.  Waterman. 

Pp.  271-358,  plates  21-28.  March,  1910  . . . . . . 80 

Index,  pp.  359-369. 

VoL  9.  1.  Tana  Texts,  by  Edward  Sapir,  together  with  Tana  Myths  collected  by 

Roland  B.  Dixon.  Pp.  1-235.  February,  1910 . . .  2.50 

2.  The  Chumash  and  Costanoan  Languages,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp.  237- 

271,  November,  1910 . . . . . . . 35 

3.  The  Languages  of  the  CoaBt  of  California  North  of  San  Francisco,  by 

A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp.  273-435,  and  map.  April,  1911  . .  1.50 

Index,  pp.  437-439. 

Vol.  10.  1.  Phonetic  Constituents  of  the  Native  Languages  of  California,  by  A. 

L.  Kroeber.  Pp.  1-12.  May,  1911 . . . . . 10 

2.  The  Phonetic  Elements  of  the  Northern  Paiute  Language,  by  T.  T. 

Waterman.  Pp.  13-44,  plates  1-5.  November,  1911  . 45 

3.  Phonetic  Elements  of  the  Mohave  Language,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp. 

45-96,  plates  6-20.  November,  1911  . . . . . . . . .  .65 

4.  The  Ethnology  of  the  Salinan  Indians,  by  J.  Alden  Mason.  Pp.  97- 

240,  plates  21-37.  December,  1912  . . . . . . . . . .  1.75 

5.  Papago  Verb  Stems,  by  Juan  Dolores.  Pp.  241-263.  August,  1913 . 25 

6.  Notes  on  the  Chilula  Indians  of  Northwestern  California,  by  Pliny 

Earl  Goddard.  Pp.  265-288,  plates  38-41.  April,  1914 . 30 

7.  Chilula  Texts,  by  Pliny  Earle  Goddard.  Pp.  289-379.  November, 

Index,  pp.  381-385. 

Vol.  11.  1.  Elements  of  the  Kato  Language,  by  Pliny  Earle  Goddard.  Pp.  1-176, 

plates  1-45.  October,  1912  . .1. . . . . .  2,00 

2.  Phonetic  Elements  of  the  Dieguefio  Language,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber  and 

J.  P.  Harrington.  Pp.  177-188.  April,  1914  . 10 

3.  Sarsi  Texts,  by  Pliny  Earle  Goddard.  Pp.  189-277.  February,  1915....  1.00 

4.  Serian,  Tequistlatecan,  and  Hokan,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp.  279-290. 

February,  1915  . . . .  . . . . . . 10 

5.  Dichotomous  Social  Organization  in  South  Central  California,  by  Ed¬ 

ward  Winslow  Gifford.  Pp.  291-296.  February,  1916  . . . . 05 

6.  The  Delineation  of  the  Day  Signs  in  the  Aztec  Manuscripts,  by  T.  T. 

Waterman.  Pp.  297-398.  March,  1916  . _...e.,.: . . .  1.00 

7.  The  Mutsun  Dialect  of  Costanoan  Based  on  the  Vocabulary  of  De  la 

Cuesta,  by  J.  Alden  Mason.  Pp.  399-472.  March,  1916  . . 70 

Index,  pp.  473-479. 

Vol.  12.  1.  Composition  of  California  Shellmourds,  by  Edward  Winslow  Gifford. 

Pp.  1-29.  February,  1916  . . . . : . 30 

2.  California  Place  Names  of  Indian  Origin,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp. 

31-69.  June,  1916  . . 1 . . . . . .  .40 

3.  Arapaho  Dialects,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber.  Pp.  71-138.  June,  1916  . .  .70 

4.  Miwolr  Moieties,  by  Edward  Winslow  Gifford.  Pp.  139-194.  June, 

1916  . . . . ... . r . . . . . 55 

5.  On  Plotting  the  Inflections  of  the  Voice,  by  Cornelius  B.  Bradley.  Pp. 

195-218,  plates  1-5.  October,  1916  . . . . . :. . 25 

6.  Tiibatulabal  and  Kawaiisu  Kinship  Terms,  by  Edward  Winslow  Gif- 


7.  Bandelier’s  Contribution  to  the  Study  of  Ancient  Mexican  Social 

Organization,  by  T.  T.  Waterman.  Pp.  249-282.  February,  1917 . 35 


UNIVERSITY.  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS  -  (CONTI  NUED) 


Volumes  now  completed: 

Volume  1.  1903-1904.  S78  pages  and  30  plates  _ $4.25 

Volume  2.  1904-1907.  393  pages  and  21  plates  _ _ 3.60 

Volume  3.  1905.  The  Morphology  of  the  Hupa  Language.  344  pages _  3.50 

Volume  4.  1906-1907.  374  pages,  with  6  tables,  10  plates,  and  map  . . 3.50 

Volume  5.  1907-1910.  384  pages,  with  25  plates  . 8.50 

Volume  6.  1908.  400  pages,  with  3  maps  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3.60 

Volume  7.  1907-1910.  443  pages  and  50  plates  . . 3.50 

Volume  8.  1908-1910.  369  pages  and  28  plates  . 3.50 

Volume  9.  1910-1911.  439  pages  . . . . . .  3.50 

Volume  10.  1911-1914.  385  pages  and  41  plates  . 3.50 

Volume  11.  1911-1916.  479  pages  and  45  plates  . 3.50 


Note.— -The  University  of  California  Publications  are  offered  in  exchange  for  the  publi¬ 
cations  of  learned  societies  and  institutions,  universities  and  libraries.  Complete  lists  of  all 
the  publications  of  the  University  will  be  sent  upon  request.  For  sample  copies,  lists  of 
publications  or  other  information,  address  the  Manager  of  the  University  Press,  Berkeley, 
California,  U.  S.  A.  All  matter  sent  in  exchange  should  be  addressed  to  The  Exchange 
Department,  University  Library,  Berkeley,  California,  U.  S.  A. 

AGRICULTURAL  SCIENCES. — E.  B.  Babcock,  J.  W.  Gilmore,  and  C.  B.  Lipman,  Editors. 
Price  per  volume,  $3.50.  Volumes  I  and  II  in  progress. 

ASTRONOMY.— W.  W.  Campbell,  Editor.  (Lick  Observatory,  Mt.  Hamilton,  Cal.) 

Publications  of  the  Lick  Observatory. — Volumes  I-XII  completed. 

BOTANY.— W.  A.  Setchell,  Editor.  Price  per  volume  $3.50.  Volumes  I  (pp.  418),  II  (pp. 
360),  III  (pp.  400),  and  IV  (pp.  397)  completed.  Volumes  V,  VI,  and  VII  in  progress. 

CLASSICAL  PHILOLOGY.— Edward  B.  Clapp,  William  A.  Merrill,  Herbert  C.  Nutting, 
Editors.  Price  per  volume  $2.00.  Volume  I  (pp.  270)  completed.  Volume  EL  in 
progress. 

EDUCATION.— Edited  by  the  Department  of  Education.  Price  per  volume  $2.50. 

ENGINEERING.— Edited  under  the  direction  of  the  Engineering  Departments.  This  series 
will  contain  contributions  from  the  Colleges  of  Mechanics,  Mining,  and  Civil  Engi¬ 
neering.  Volume  I  in  progress. 

GEOGRAPHY.— Ruliff  S.  Hoiway,  Editor.  Volume  I  in  progress. 

GEOLOGY. — Bulletin  of  the  Department  of  Geology.  Andrew  C.  Lawson  and  John  O. 
Merriam,  Editors.  Price  per  volume  for  volumes  I- VII,  $3.50;  for  volumes  VIII  and 
following,  $5.  Volumes  I  (pp.  435),  II  (pp.  457),  III  (pp.  482),  IV  (pp.  462),  V 
(pp.  458),  VI  (pp.  454),  VII  (pp.  504),  and  VIII  (pp.  583)  and  IX  (pp.  545)  com¬ 
pleted.  Volume  X  in  progress. 

MODERN  PHILOLOGY.— Volumes  I  (pp.  400),  II  (pp.  373),  III  (pp,  510),  and  IV  (pp. 
498)  completed. 

PATHOLOGY. — Frederick  P.  Gay,  Editor.  Price  per  volume,  $2.50.  Volume  I  (pp.  347) 
completed.  Volume  II  in  progress. 

PHILOSOPHY.— C.  H.  Rieber,  Editor.  Volume  I  (pp.  262)  completed.  Volume  II  in 
progress.  Price  per  volume  $2.00. 

PHYSIOLOGY.— S.  S.  Maxwell,  Editor.  Price  per  volume  $2.00.  Volumes  I  (pp.  217), 
n  (pp.  215),  III  (pp.  197),  and  IV  (pp.  228)  completed.  Volume  V  in  progress. 

PSYCHOLOGY. — George  M.  Stratton,  Editor.  Volumes  I  and  II  in  progress. 

ZOOLOGY. — W.  E.  Ritter  and  C.  A.  Kofoid,  Editors.  Price  per  volume  for  volumes  I-X, 
$3.50:  for  volume  XI  and  following,  $5.00.  Volumes  I  (pp.  317),  II  (pp.  382),  HI 
(pp.  383),  IV  (pp.  400),  V  (pp.  440),  VI  (pp.  478),  VII  (pp.  446),  VIII  (pp.  357),  IX 
(pp.  365),  X  (pp.  417),  XI  (pp.  538)  and  XII  (pp.  558)  completed.  Volumes  XIII 
to  XVII  inclusive  in  progress. 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  CHRONICLE.— An  official  record  of  University  life, 
issued  quarterly,  edited  by  a  committee  of  the  Faculty.  Price,  $1.00  per  year.  Cur¬ 
rent  volume  No.  XIX. 

Address  all  orders  or  requests  for  information  concerning  the  above  publications  to  The 
University  of  California  Press,  Berkeley,  California. 


